LF Just refurbished all LF antennas and tested. All working FB Will be testing on 136.6 CW later on if anyone is about for a QSO. Also QRV on 472.5 CW DE MAL/G3KEV
Mike, Sorry for a misunderstanding. If all that concerns you is matching then it does not matter if there is a ferrite core or no ferrite core, but if you are also interested in getting greater effic
Hi Mike, Have a look at : http://www.wireless.org.uk/dk5pt-f.htm It shows a very small loading coil (using a pot core) made by DK5PT. 73, Rik ON7YD Just to clarify, the problem I am trying to fix is
I replied: ON7YD wrote: I'm using a loading coil with ferrite rod for 'fine tuning' the antenna (I can slide the rod in/out the coil). Without rod the coil is 700uH, with the rod I can tune it from
If you load it with ferrite you will certainly increase its inductance and also its efficacy as a receiving antenna but the radiation efficiency on tx will decrease accordingly (the difference betwe
If you load it with ferrite you will certainly increase its inductance and also its efficacy as a receiving antenna but the radiation efficiency on tx will decrease accordingly (the difference betwee
Mike, If you load it with ferrite you will certainly increase its inductance and also its efficacy as a receiving antenna but the radiation efficiency on tx will decrease accordingly (the difference
Regarding the use of a high loading coil, Mike (XDV) comments: It all gets back to the lessons we learned a long time ago about 160 metre mobile antennas. Get the loading coil above the roof of the
Our experiences seem to confirm that this sort of size (i.e. of the order of a couple of metres in diameter) and particularly the use of low resistance Litz is optimum. The number of turns is 10 in
Regarding the use of a high loading coil, Mike (XDV) comments: part beyond the coil is quite antenna with substantial large inductance Perhaps I have misunderstood your point Mike, but this sounds w
Hi Peter, hi All, I was particularly interested to read about Peter's new receive loop, which shares several features with the loop that I built, primarily its size and the use of thick Litz wire. Li
Hi Peter, hi All, I was particularly interested to read about Peter's new receive loop, which shares several features with the loop that I built, primarily its size and the use of thick Litz wire. Li
G3LDO wrote: In an attempt to improve the reception on 136kHz by cutting down the Loran racket I have, over a period of time, been experimenting with LF receiving loops. I now have one that works rea
In an attempt to improve the reception on 136kHz by cutting down the Loran racket I have, over a period of time, been experimenting with LF receiving loops. I now have one that works really well. It
Walter, I thought some of his remarks might strike a chord with this Group. See for yourselves!!!< ... thanks for publishing this, indeed, it reminds me of a lot of the experiments we are carrying ou
I've recently been editing the memoirs of Dr. J. A. Pierce, an American engineer who was responsible for much of the design work on the Omega and Loran-C navigation systems and I thought some of his
It seems a long time since I wrote to this reflector. I have been reading the mail but have been rather busy. I have just sent off all the chapter of a new book on Mobile radio. This turned out to be
During this very wet spell I noticed that the total antenna resistance has gone up - probably due to environmental losses. The daily cycling of antenna resistance does not seem so bad on 136kHz as on
John, W1TAG said: -- It is occasionally useful to suggest to the newer readers of this reflector that despite the advice given by G3KEV, significant fun and useful knowledge may be had by LF experime
