To: | "[email protected]" <[email protected]> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB... |
From: | Daniele Tincani <[email protected]> |
Date: | Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:03:35 -0700 (PDT) |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1313071415; bh=OyQM3pS4eBQrfB4S3ik1EQj23srqRHFDvk6fC4WmnfQ=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=v3UQ5QXKUXqHInMnPzbmSplmsnMkETdnjXoGQharQ983wZwR1nQUWrcFrvB9iFMJJLwjC5AgNzQI6jZZj4QFwQKvrZKsdRxQum4MAFKbXTQkFsCp6CI9xtz+/bKpRhMRA+Y88cjcjR5sG5QtEabduX19cVmnjJbCcye6SQPRZws= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XRO3NVxgrAirG7NnqPAqIyTYFdFBCO9xxvQ9Lf8bMelRTkMGhcEUrkcLKZw3NTBwkwGp88T/9ChERwgQwLz+Y8l2TvNZNgdu1WmWovGs34tKKAPqM+0mHHoJug50qM91wPnCZQsyPAsRHQqI1dpABJti1m6ymY/FU3pI0GWAtXk=; |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <[email protected]> |
References: | <[email protected]> <67A6F7BF45BF4A0193A3DCB53000A283@PcMinto> <008401cc56ce$2f1fb2c0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <12C475F3F4C84B818461753F2E8A60A6@PcMinto> <[email protected]> <8D68749D37B94275855FDBA46A3F6C97@PcMinto> <[email protected]> <CAA8k23SzJFi2tGfkN0fSRMi9bCwa_63uWiAZSV3P+dxcKfuSpg@mail.gmail.com> <op.vz1omdp2yzqh0k@pc-roelof> <[email protected]> <op.vz1uhozmyzqh0k@pc-roelof> <[email protected]> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Yes I'm sure it works. BTW, I work in the optical networks area of a well-known (swedish) company of telecom equipments, so I really trust optical comms ;-)
The interesting thing would be to compare in a very quiet location an active, optically-coupled E-probe, with very short copper leads, just for the battery; and another identical E-probe, installed at the same height, on a similar pole, etc. with "conventional" feeder through a coax cable. Just to see what changes.
I mean, if the cable actually is an integral part of such an antenna ("the cable is the real antenna", as I read sometimes in comments about the MiniWhip), I would expect a significant improvement from using a coax rather than fiber. It would be necessary to find a very quiet location for such test, to prevent local hum from giving an obvious advantage to the fiber solution.
Regards
D.
From: Stefan Schäfer <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:46 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB... Hello Roelof, Daniele, LF, Yes, it works. Before i started with the VLF stuff in February 2010 i did tests with LF active antennas, battery supplied, and signal transfer by fiber optic cables. Actually it worked well with a single BF862 with the TX LED in the drain-to-plus stage and a 9V battery. This was an interesting alternative. But later i started with the LF grabber and so it becomes inpractical since i don't want to replace a battery all the time and thought a solar module might be covered by snow in winther and so on... Nice stuff to experiment. Anyway you have to be in a quiet location but noise transfer on a coax screen was history... It also worked on a multi turn loop which i used in France last year... 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 11.08.2011 14:33, schrieb Roelof Bakker: > Hello Daniele, > > I have the parts on hands, but house restoration has prevented tests so far. > I will report in due time. > > However Stefan has used an optical link with a 30 cm active whip. > So, it certainly will work. > > 73, > Roelof |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB..., Clemens Paul |
---|---|
Next by Date: | LF: Re: 137 PROBE, James Moritz |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB..., Stefan Schäfer |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: HB9ASB..., mal hamilton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |