Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id v9R1w6S9028921 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 03:58:09 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1e7tns-00041R-GM for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 02:51:20 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1e7tnp-00041I-9T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 02:51:17 +0100 Received: from resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net ([2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:41]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1e7tnm-0003e8-1c for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 02:51:15 +0100 Received: from resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.100]) by resqmta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 7tngeJAw1JACj7tngeVlge; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:51:08 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1509069068; bh=h7QQZFP/D9vbSboqorcnhqD/K6aznWc3HDWwgLGtiwc=; h=Received:Received:From:Subject:To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID; b=QtgTKHTsXy+IHLhA3AgjYq/+2jWb9fYM2SO2dqV1jli/CA7dmjx65RY+yXu2u8evf bsTI6iOxKAIoStwQMu68tCr8TbPo+zgnRCa+td+nkg+16bNqbU8tHnpl16HWpro8vk i+f0vTtKEtwA2MEMrmNg8tmOFmEJqnMwiEnRzxlU+DtcuTAjRcrDEnmS9qA5RcZwCc phZNHSJMEBBU8+HtFDROvUJFVs5+Z8VOct39ab0VYm/7wKbVSDjEHKqPGqQXjnfEBr JLGifNddDPWEZfOaL4cvI6E/oKGla0QOZIr0Soya//xlaAz355gn7vZ3O1ek42hsF/ FpGXkQH8W+nug== Received: from Optiplex980-PC ([73.4.253.141]) by resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id 7tndeHDwWsFF87tneezkS3; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:51:08 +0000 From: "jrusgrove@comcast.net" To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4273a2ab-787c-d909-e7d0-d21db21ba18c@n1bug.com> <59EF0EDB.15093.422D52F1@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <59F05705.5020008@posteo.de> <59F1ADF3.16016.4C6AD4F6@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> <6A5A0D655C1547DD91B4A70E43248F0D@DELL4> <42e9950b-8ac9-4121-793b-3342e23571d5@n1bug.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:51:08 -0400 Message-ID: <1UNmE8frPz.1cE4s2bk2MN@optiplex980-pc> In-Reply-To: <42e9950b-8ac9-4121-793b-3342e23571d5@n1bug.com> User-Agent: OEClassic/2.7 (Win7; P; 2017-02-12) X-Mailer: OEClassic/2.7 (Win7; P; 2017-02-12) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKCbmIzR59KkqQBH/0fTebLHDHYrJgepM2ur4BxoSEpM9fbX7vaR7eFdRXyyYxEBG/Eos/i6Mo+qxThAzg8uqh7i208kI9j5+3JOW4cGX8fjxzsafY6b QTmukOKo+M2F7vrddK7hhd0QCUF8P+Q+60ZxWPA48ZgwyBSPnKQJx1FOQpTtBWKmanPDGYIS7WfXJQ== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Paul 61 material ferrite will give higher Q than -2 powdered iron at LF/MF. Nothing wrong with -2 powdered iron ... it's just 61 material ferrite offers superb Q. I wouldn't recommend any of the lower frequency powdered iron materials if you're looking for high Q. [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 85c54099682e8e65d9e25bf804a68673 Subject: Re: LF: Monitoring 2190m WSPR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="vgf6T9kOYyH80VHkpVvkjpPGxmaCvj=_Sm" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format --vgf6T9kOYyH80VHkpVvkjpPGxmaCvj=_Sm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Paul 61 material ferrite will give higher Q than -2 powdered iron at LF/MF.= Nothing=20 wrong with -2 powdered iron ...=20 it's just 61 material ferrite offers superb Q. I wouldn't recommend an= y of the=20 lower frequency powdered iron materials if=20 you're looking for high Q. =20 Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: N1BUG Reply-To: To: Sent: 10/26/2017 11:26:58 AM Subject: Re: LF: Monitoring 2190m WSPR Thanks Jay. I am far from knowledgeable about these materials but that agrees=20 with measured performance of several receive bandpass filters I=20 built for LF/MF last winter. I tried several different ferrite=20 materials and 61 performed best. However I have no idea how that=20 would compare to the powdered iron T50-2 normally used in this=20 circuit. In the long run I think I may order a couple more LPF kits=20= and build one both ways for comparison. Who knows, I may learn=20 something! 73, Paul N1BUG WI2XTC On 10/26/2017 10:46 AM, jrusgrove@comcast.net wrote: > Paul >=20 > 61 material has the best Q of any of the ferrite materials (that I'm= =20 aware of) at LF/MF. Can't say > whether or not the change to a different coil would be appropriate i= n that circuit. >=20 > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2 --vgf6T9kOYyH80VHkpVvkjpPGxmaCvj=_Sm Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Paul
 
61 material ferrite will give higher Q than -2 pow= dered iron at LF/MF. Nothing wrong with -2 powdered iron ... it's= just 61 material ferrite offers superb Q. I wouldn't recommend any of= the lower frequency powdered iron materials if you're looking for hig= h Q.  
 
Jay W1VD  WD2XNS  WE2XGR/2     = ; 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: N1BUG <paul@n1b= ug.com>
Sent: 10/26/2017 11:26:58 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Monitoring 2190m WSPR
Thanks Jay.

I am far from knowledgeable about these materials b= ut that agrees
with measured performance of several receive bandpa= ss filters I
built for LF/MF last winter. I tried several differen= t ferrite
materials and 61 performed best. However I have no idea = how that
would compare to the powdered iron T50-2 normally used in= this
circuit. In the long run I think I may order a couple more L= PF kits
and build one both ways for comparison. Who knows, I may l= earn
something!

73,
Paul N1BUG WI2XTC


On 10/2= 6/2017 10:46 AM, jrusgrove@co= mcast.net wrote:
> Paul
>
> 61 material has the= best Q of any of the ferrite materials (that I'm aware of) at LF/MF. = Can't say
> whether or not the change to a different coil would = be appropriate in that circuit.
>
> Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XG= R/2

--vgf6T9kOYyH80VHkpVvkjpPGxmaCvj=_Sm--