Happy New Year.
What is important for those receiving aerials is the actual S/N in the receiver.
One aerial may have higher signal, but also higher noise. So the actual performance
may not have been improved at all.
Once did some comparisons between different aerials at P.O. Laboratories at
Bearley, near Stratford on Avon,
but I couldn't verify that the log.meter worked as it should. So I've had some interest to build a better
equipment later.
One possibility is to use two SPM-3 (Pegelmesser's) - one set for 138.8 kHz,
and the other for reference on
quiet spot of the band.
The other is to measure S/N directly from the signal output from SPM-3 or D2006.
Does somebody know some circuits I could build for reasonable accuracy?
73,
Jan-Martin
N4623-Kristiansand (tel.: +47-380-87178 Home)(38052660 Work 90777126 Mobile)
http://www.laud.no/la6nca/LA8AK/
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: James Moritz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sendt: 23. desember 2002 20:49
Til: [email protected]
Emne: Re: LF: Loops again
At 16:55 23/12/2002 +0000, you wrote:
With all the loop talk that has been going on since before time began has
anyone found a design for a near perfect small loop, suppose its like how
long is a piece of string, obviously the bigger the better but then there
is the diminishing returns senario, it there much noticeable difference
between a 2 meter side square loop and a 4meter.
How much signal power a loop can deliver to the receiver depends on 2
factors - the area, and the Q (or losses). How much you need depends on
the overall system design; how good or bad the RX is, whether you want to
trade off sensitivity against bandwidth, have a wide tuning range, etc., so
yes, it is a "how long is a piece of string" question. But as a rough
guide, a 1m^2 tuned loop with a sensibly designed preamp, or with good
matching to a low noise receiver will give a noise floor well below the
band noise. The signal to noise ratio of the loop is good, but the absolute
signal level is much smaller than with a vertical, so the performance of
the receiver is much more important. If you double the size to 4m^2, the
design becomes a lot less critical because you are picking up 12dB more
signal to start with. With very large loops, almost anything will deliver
more than adequate signal levels, but then you lose the advantages of a
small loop - being able to rotate it for optimum peaking or nulling, and
being able to move it to find a location with low noise levels.
Which is better a single turn loop, several turns in series, several turns
in parallel and the best method of feed and matching at the loop.
It is largely a matter of convenience of design - Several alternatives have
been mentioned; they all work if done properly.
I have a lot of information about all of these loops little and large but
never used a very small loop and might try but there is a lot of
conflicting info about the various configurations and I do not want to re
invent the wheel so if someone has had good practical results it would be
useful.
Maybe it would be a good idea not to keep saying how they are all rubbish
before you have actually tried them...
I have been watching QRS activity lately while in the shack doing other
things and notice a lot of CQ'S from various amateurs around the UK and
Europe and sometimes all going at once, the screen is getting cluttered,
but only a few result in QSO'S so it would appear obvious to me that the
majority are not seeing each other, and that would indicate poor receiving
capabilities.
...Or that they worked each other a couple of days ago.
I appear to be receiving all of the activity but my 90 meter perimiter
loop is reasonably large and is doing well on receive but not as good as
my vertical, however I would like to try a very small loop and compare
results, but I dont want to build several small loops varying in design,
if someone has already done this and knows which ones to forget about.
I know location is also important, good ground, reasonable and poor ground
etc under the loop and some use loops to null out qrm but I am not
concerned about qrm, this location is rural and as qrm free as one can
get, this is why my vertical is also good on receive.
Please dont tell me to read the Comic, I need todays technology.
73 de Mal/G3KEV
If you have no QRM, and adequate sensitivity already, you can't expect to
gain much from other types of antennas. Perhaps you need to install more of
today's technology - light dimmers, home entertainment systems, compact
florescent bulbs, computers etc. etc. so you can really put things to the test!
Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU
|
