Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1233; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD 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 t8KJYtrs013609 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:34:55 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ZdkJk-0001o4-8p for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:30:32 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ZdkJj-0001nv-DB for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:30:31 +0100 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdkIe-00087H-Uv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:30:30 +0100 Received: from dovecot03.posteo.de (dovecot03.posteo.de [172.16.0.13]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9F120824 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot03.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nJzVG4jjKz5vNR for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:29:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <55FF0906.9090800@posteo.de> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:29:10 +0200 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Scan-Signature: d5ac66e7920295f519efeb68ecc59e6f Subject: Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050404040609020005060103" 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4108 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050404040609020005060103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Uwe, I git the same warning message. Now, what was the content of the page, what did you want to show me? 73, Stefan Am 18.09.2015 19:00, schrieb uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de: > 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 --------------050404040609020005060103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Uwe,

I git the same warning message.

Now, what was the content of the page, what did you want to show me?

73, Stefan

Am 18.09.2015 19:00, schrieb uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de:
hi Stefan,
pse see

http://dj8wx-dl.de/two.htm


Uwe/dj8wx

 
Von: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
Gesendet: 15.09.2015 16:17
An: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
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
 
--------------050404040609020005060103--