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 x4FClprs006086 for ; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:47:52 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1hQt7V-0006CI-TU for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:34:53 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1hQt7U-0006C9-TA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:34:52 +0100 Received: from out3-22.antispamcloud.com ([185.201.18.22]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hQt7T-0006PL-2j for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 13:34:51 +0100 Received: from [85.60.35.36] (helo=servigilant.vigilant.es) by mx147.antispamcloud.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hQt72-0018dE-2b; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:34:39 +0200 Received: from servigilant.vigilant.local ([fe80::c40d:8140:d722:5448]) by servigilant.vigilant.local ([fe80::c40d:8140:d722:5448%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:34:02 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?VIGILANT_Luis_Fern=E1ndez?= To: "rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org" , "Renato Romero" Thread-Topic: 2nd attempt at 270 Hz Thread-Index: AQHVCol5Nd5R+ZFoJUOOZDcksHaBnqZsHqNg Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 12:34:01 +0000 Message-ID: <6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA3158A44F@servigilant.vigilant.local> References: <5CDB1096.5090309@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: <5CDB1096.5090309@posteo.de> Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Content-Language: es-ES X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.22] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: 85.60.35.36 X-MailAssure-Domain: vigilant.es X-MailAssure-Username: smtpsolarwinds Authentication-Results: antispamcloud.com; auth=pass (login) smtp.auth=smtpsolarwinds@vigilant.es X-MailAssure-Outgoing-Class: ham X-MailAssure-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.34) X-Recommended-Action: accept X-Filter-ID: Mvzo4OR0dZXEDF/gcnlw0XJZQFAmqAilMiozUWhfaCSpSDasLI4SayDByyq9LIhVPJ5WKLLrT6rS oT3761C/DkTNWdUk1Ol2OGx3IfrIJKyP9eGNFz9TW9u+Jt8z2T3K77g3apogeupBmi2uw9yM85zL Mw6aWzXeBnDGYwfWOghs7LL01OUmzfGflO05Dn3pTX+DNB8zzxX/4FjqtJmb5LmCt4A0+PybPPRb RboCkvV0k0djWKUE0+lCNY386ygyinBRfGdQU7xK5gLJsJXJyvSOPpeW9d4Jvsx1Ta91A/9+6nvV IlJf3NBR0csz0FPj53trH7f4l//1LeVpAA/AXlnmYq/JybZm6sVKYBJkuAkrd7YjkvqU8FYn5Nbe 4ccUo6phgFa4F1X5vqoB9bVQMCi0xaZ4JgszHzjFel7oWqHAfqmtGTQeo8POuZmcDwPa3TfPZIqA M8Ie+yu0YIH91dTUbFHc1msMenV9DSfAc7ffX8TdqEXkwxwMjsp2mNApoeS7p9z9eLCrtSdVSnM5 bSERbInMiTBIUBbQ/Dy6Ip7sU8rLKeC9KZVBooGsfM8uC6VcT+WBWYOX4Lnly3+iyhwye9SUlypF Kn6rE6sBBFDonV+E7OMXRvgtdyMlnmWii7CsM7nD8C+KCz+8Jy0W7PtSyK7J0LNgfd6kOtccNCdB fQdCiFKmitrzjoNEwm+8f/Xhd/hTGC6ehGOXxozwaDVC6mYUgHsySB3Wung3lqK+7mViWOD/QqfY Qm6BUxQws9tqK+lxHxu6kPKogYm7IvGQq1e2wuIr2FHsybeGhMFHjw84KYWqZafsoRp75j0qIbtf 63VNbf0lrvssY+k7APbrekQ+NcqZN8SreZR1o02/ON3T8omjTopJj826j7plqgG0iGtYu5r8+ABc iSfFVFHXztc30zLghPhRwdLYp83eNHk15VolAGHS5rCXQKDynG1HsY893jhwNvy/Id3vq/e5wdsH 87EE6i7Pu7hy/B8W5wDUT57D6yUWXM4ZZ6TRAW+ePckBkyrwgOiN/vneaw== X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine3.antispamcloud.com X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) 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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Hi, SLF Amazing test Stefan! You have already surpassed all the limits in low bands. Just watching here with mouth opened Keep paving the path to DC and thank you for sharing both, success and failures. People has a tendency to h [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [185.201.18.22 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server [85.60.35.36 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.0 T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID BODY: Test for Invalidly Named or Formatted Colors in HTML 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Scan-Signature: e2b7e65dcf7cf6551ab81105a525fe0f Subject: LF: RE: 2nd attempt at 270 Hz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA3158A44Fservigilantvigi_" 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 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 --_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA3158A44Fservigilantvigi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, SLF Amazing test Stefan! You have already surpassed all the limits in low bands. Just watching here = with mouth opened Keep paving the path to DC and thank you for sharing both, success and fail= ures. People has a tendency to hide failures ;-) 73 de Luis EA5DOM De: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blackshe= ep.org] En nombre de DK7FC Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2019 21:02 Para: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Renato Romero Asunto: SLF: 2nd attempt at 270 Hz Hello SLF freinds, Just a note from a recent experiment at 270.1 Hz. On sunday morning, 2019-05-12_10:34,+150m, i've done a carrier transmission= on my ground loop antenna again. I did not expect more than, hopefully, a = detectable spectrum peak in 57.6 km distance, i.e. at my tree site. The tre= e receiver site was listening and recording data using vlf-rx tools. One E field antenna and two orthogonal loops were listening. The loops have= been improved recently! They consist out of a single circular turn of 1.2 = m diameter using 10mm diameter copper tube (about 25 mm^2). It is a closed = loop, non-resonated, with an impedance matching transformer. This transform= er previously had 1:100 turns. Now it (they) has 2:240 turns, i.e. two turn= s primary (out of 14mm^2, AWG6). This improved the sensitivity below 2 kHz = significantly ( abt. 4...5 dB). Furthermore the TX antenna length and angle has been improved, resulting in= about +3 dB more signal strength on the RX site! In a previous experiment at 270.1 Hz, some month ago, there was no result a= t all, not the weakest trace, despite excessive tweaking of all parameters.= So the question was, will the improvements result in a detectable signal n= ow? Several things went wrong in that experiment. I forgot a bag containing imp= ortant equipment such as the power supply for the netbook that generates th= e carrier signal. Also the output power was not as high as planned, just ab= out 380 W, giving 2.2 A antenna current (I measured 64.7 V at 1 A DC). Anyw= ay i managed to improvise so the experiment was started, but with some hour= s of delay which meant i higher QRN background level. Then, on the WLAN lin= k to the tree, there were several interruptions of the stream (i'll move to= 5 GHz very soon!). I even got some QRM from my battery charger for some sh= ort time periods (forgot to disable the charger remotely). So there were se= veral factors that could have been improved or avoided. And the middle of M= ay is not the ideal time anyway. Well, 270.1 Hz, that's the 1110 km band! The far field begins at 177 km dis= tance, i.e. i am clearly in the near field here. Thus, from a 'magnetic' TX= antenna, we would expect that the signal is mainly detectable on the H fie= ld, i.e. the loop antennas. The first interesting results is that this expection is actually confirmed.= There is nothing detectable on the E field but the carrier S/N in the H fi= elds is close to 10 dB in the first run. Mixing the H fields and tweaking t= he filters rises the carrier S/N to 10.7 dB, see attachment. So far not really an undoubtly detection but it is a candidate for optimism= ! With a few less problems during the experiment there is a chance for 14 d= B SNR. Also, there is quite much sideband QRM arround 300 Hz which makes 27= 0 Hz a bit harder to work on. 73, Stefan --_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA3158A44Fservigilantvigi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, SLF

 = ;

Amazing te= st Stefan!

 = ;

You have already surpassed all the limits in low bands. Just watching = here with mouth opened

Keep paving the path to DC and thank you for sharing both, success and= failures. People has a tendency to hide failures ;-)

 

73 de Luis

EA5DOM

 

De: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep= .org] En nombre de DK7FC
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2019 21:02
Para: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Renato Romero <contact@vlf.it= >
Asunto: SLF: 2nd attempt at 270 Hz

 

Hello SLF freinds,

Just a note from a recent experiment at 270.1 Hz.
 
On sunday morning, 2019-05-12_10:34,+150m, i've done a carrier t= ransmission on my ground loop antenna again. I did not expect more than, ho= pefully, a detectable spectrum peak in 57.6 km distance, i.e. at my tree si= te. The tree receiver site was listening and recording data using vlf-rx tools.
One E field antenna and two orthogonal loops were listening. The loops have= been improved recently! They consist out of a single circular turn of 1.2 = m diameter using 10mm diameter copper tube (about 25 mm^2). It is a closed = loop, non-resonated, with an impedance matching transformer. This transformer previously had 1:100 turns. Now it = (they) has 2:240 turns, i.e. two turns primary (out of 14mm^2, AWG6). This = improved the sensitivity below 2 kHz significantly ( abt. 4...5 dB).
Furthermore the TX antenna length and angle has been improved, resulting in= about +3 dB more signal strength on the RX site!

In a previous experiment at 270.1 Hz, some month ago, there was no result a= t all, not the weakest trace, despite excessive tweaking of all parameters.= So the question was, will the improvements result in a detectable signal n= ow?

Several things went wrong in that experiment. I forgot a bag containing imp= ortant equipment such as the power supply for the netbook that generates th= e carrier signal. Also the output power was not as high as planned, just ab= out 380 W, giving 2.2 A antenna current (I measured 64.7 V at 1 A DC). Anyway i manage= d to improvise so the experiment was started, but with some hours of delay = which meant i higher QRN background level. Then, on the WLAN link to the tr= ee, there were several interruptions of the stream (i'll move to 5 GHz very soon!). I even got some QRM from my= battery charger for some short time periods (forgot to disable the charger= remotely). So there were several factors that could have been improved or = avoided. And the middle of May is not the ideal time anyway.

Well, 270.1 Hz, that's the 1110 km band! The far field begins at 177= km distance, i.e. i am clearly in the near field here. Thus, from a 'magne= tic' TX antenna, we would expect that the signal is mainly detectable on th= e H field, i.e. the loop antennas.
The first interesting results is that this expection is actually confirmed.= There is nothing detectable on the E field but the carrier S/N in the H fi= elds is close to 10 dB in the first run. Mixing the H fields and tweaking t= he filters rises the carrier S/N to 10.7 dB, see attachment.

So far not really an undoubtly detection but it is a candidate for optimism= ! With a few less problems during the experiment there is a chance for 14 d= B SNR. Also, there is quite much sideband QRM arround 300 Hz which makes 27= 0 Hz a bit harder to work on.

73, Stefan

--_000_6DB8451D7F3D3947A5918808A59621EA3158A44Fservigilantvigi_--