Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.1.100 with SMTP id 4csp102926igl; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:13:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.204.186.208 with SMTP id ct16mr6399311bkb.165.1373660028063; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id pu5si5035200bkb.265.2013.07.12.13.13.47 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UxjhN-0006TU-Fn for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:12:13 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UxjhM-0006TL-Dr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:12:12 +0100 Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl ([194.109.24.33]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UxjhK-0005X0-NA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:12:11 +0100 Received: from pc-roelof (ndb.demon.nl [82.161.81.65]) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6CKC0nm039055 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:12:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from roelof@ndb.demon.nl) To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51D498BD.3050007@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <005b01ce798a$b0476600$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <20130706131640.GG5246@cs.utwente.nl> <7D6B8CBB38964C9C82487F5D0F3648FC@FMVXD1232> <20130707203537.GA30691@cs.utwente.nl> <51DA00C8.6000600@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA0212.8020808@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA03CE.6020508@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DA1680.6030602@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DB6CB3.2080708@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <001601ce7c95$f235b360$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <51DBFF7D.9050807@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DC58E9.5030005@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DF1D06.8020208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <51DF43E7.8080300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:11:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Roelof Bakker" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51DF43E7.8080300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Win32) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hello Stefan, Before using an optical link with an active antenna, I have been testing it with a spectrum analyzer. A FSH756V was used as optical transmitter and a FSH350V as optical receiver. Instead of a BF862, a J310 was used in the transmitter. The FSH350V was followed by a standard mini-whip buffer amplifier. The FSH756V and FSH350V are not suitable for HF use, I'm afraid. These are rated for only 15 kBd. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [194.109.24.33 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 4e3b1488273adbbe9757d6bdd5adf219 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Subject: Re: LF: Re: MiniWhip antenna, fiber optic TEST SIGNALS NEEDED on 630m WSPR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2829 Hello Stefan, Before using an optical link with an active antenna, I have been testing it with a spectrum analyzer. A FSH756V was used as optical transmitter and a FSH350V as optical receiver. Instead of a BF862, a J310 was used in the transmitter. The FSH350V was followed by a standard mini-whip buffer amplifier. The FSH756V and FSH350V are not suitable for HF use, I'm afraid. These are rated for only 15 kBd. The system was tested between 50 kHz and 10 MHz with a 1 meter and a 19 meter long optical cable. I found that the cable loss varied from 0.48 dB/m at 50 kHz to 0.35 dB/m at 10 MHz. As it works now, loss is rather severe; with a 1 m optical cable I found: 50 kHz: 5.4 dB 100 kHz: 6.7 dB 200 kHz: 11.0 dB 300 kHz: 14.3 dB 400 kHz: 16.7 dB 500 kHz: 18.7 dB Using a 19 meter long optical cable another 8 dB should be added to these figures. None the less I will try to carry out a test with a mini-whip on 400 kHz. To be continued. 73, Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt