Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1102; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id t8II789X009491 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:07:08 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Zd012-0005wc-J9 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:04:08 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Zd012-0005wT-AD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:04:08 +0100 Received: from mbox1.netikka.net ([213.250.81.202]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1Zczzy-00085H-L1 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:04:07 +0100 Received: from localhost (unknown [172.16.83.116]) by mbox1-feedback.netikka.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559A81288F3 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:02:46 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Anvianet Email Filtering Service Received: from hupu.netikka.net ([172.16.83.118]) by localhost (filter2.netikkabb.fi [172.16.83.116]) (amavisd-new, port 10034) with ESMTP id SM_fE1IgYyB0 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:02:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from posti1.anvianet.fi (postilb2.anvianet.fi [81.209.15.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hupu.netikka.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D982D4B004F for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:02:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from www-data by posti1.anvianet.fi with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Zczzh-0001Rx-Fx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:02:45 +0300 Received: from b623.ip13.netikka.fi (b623.ip13.netikka.fi [94.22.58.111]) by posti.anvianet.fi (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:02:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20150918180245.Horde.0rxOy8VnY3_5RrYan0lB9w4@posti.anvianet.fi> From: phl@netikka.fi To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <47A66D8A-F094-4A0D-AEDD-78C8931B34CB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47A66D8A-F094-4A0D-AEDD-78C8931B34CB@gmail.com> User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Scan-Signature: 9d01e9df836df8dd3868645661e1c1f7 Subject: Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes 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 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by paranoid.lipkowski.org id t8II789X009491 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4098 Same here... I get the “attack page” warning. Using latest Firefox 40.0.3 Paul-Henrik OH1LSQ Quoting John Rabson : > DJ8WX’s page referred to below is reported by my system to be an > “attack page”. > > John F5VLF > >> On 18 Sep 2015, at 19:00, uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de wrote: >> >> hi Stefan, >> pse see >> >> http://dj8wx-dl.de/two.htm >> >> >> Uwe/dj8wx >> >> >> Von: DK7FC >> Gesendet: 15.09.2015 16:17 >> An: >> Betreff: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception >> >> Hi all, >> >> Since a while i'm now comparing RX results between two omnidirrectional >> E field antennas. One of them is active (similar to the PA0RDT antenna), >> the other one is a T antenna, resonanted to the frequency of interest >> and matched to 50 Ohm... (So the T antenna could be used for >> transmitting). The small active antenna is inside a plastic tube, so >> (charged!) raindrops do not fall on the probe directly. The charge can >> flow to ground through the weak conducting water layer (probably in the >> range of 1E8 Ohm?).During rain i saw that the "QRN" was significantly >> higher on the T antenna. >> >> So, could it be a better idea to use an active antenna (with a limited >> large signal capability and a non-perfect linearity!) instead of a >> "real" or "traditional" band-selective T antenna? Maybe worth to compare >> the results on a stereo RX ;-) I my imagination i see the active antenna >> with an umbrella to protect from rain (charged drops, |q| > 0). As >> higher the distance between probe and umbrella, the better the noise >> reduction and the lower the signal loss? >> Time to build and test the performance of an active E field probe >> consuming 5V/1mA... >> Just some thoughts... >> >> 73, Stefan >> > > john.rabson07@gmail.com > > Researching history of RABSON, BLACKSHAW, GAUNTLETT, VERLANDER and ROBSONNE