Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1170; 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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, 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 t8LKHdKi016651 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:17:40 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Ze7PJ-0004A5-TF for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:09:49 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Ze7PJ-00049w-5Z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:09:49 +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 1Ze7OE-0004tu-Ax for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:09:48 +0100 Received: from dovecot03.posteo.de (dovecot03.posteo.de [172.16.0.13]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 740E120879 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:08:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dovecot03.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nKcK474sVz5vNJ for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:08:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <560063B7.6020606@posteo.de> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:08:23 +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: <79876d125b9744af8a577d6aba6dd6e0@kabelmail.de> In-Reply-To: <79876d125b9744af8a577d6aba6dd6e0@kabelmail.de> X-Scan-Signature: a32b10ac5c14008078455df469dc45d3 Subject: Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050003040700090304030804" 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: 4112 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050003040700090304030804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Uwe, Now it is readable, thanks. Nice project! Many of us still seem to improve things continuously :-) Today i got my 1.1 m long WLAN yagi for the new MF remote location. It is quite impressive! I will do tests in the next days, as soon as the wx is as good as today :-) 73, Stefan Am 21.09.2015 17:00, schrieb uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de: > > sri for the touble, but I have no problem reading the site. > > now I transformed it into a MSWord sheet and attached it (805KB) > > vy 73 > > Uwe/dj8wx > > > *Von:* DK7FC > *Gesendet:* 20.09.2015 21:35 > *An:* > *Betreff:* Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF > reception > 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 --------------050003040700090304030804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Uwe,

Now it is readable, thanks. Nice project! Many of us still seem to improve things continuously :-)

Today i got my 1.1 m long WLAN yagi for the new MF remote location. It is quite impressive! I will do tests in the next days, as soon as the wx is as good as today :-)

73, Stefan

Am 21.09.2015 17:00, schrieb uwe-jannsen@kabelmail.de:

sri for the touble, but I have no problem reading the site.

now I transformed it into a MSWord sheet and attached it (805KB)

vy 73

Uwe/dj8wx


 
Von: DK7FC <selberdenken@posteo.de>
Gesendet: 20.09.2015 21:35
An: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Betreff: Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception
 
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
 
--------------050003040700090304030804--