Return to KLUBNL.PL main page
| To: | [email protected] |
|---|---|
| Subject: | LF: Re: Mini Whip and local noise |
| From: | Alberto di Bene <[email protected]> |
| Date: | Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:37:33 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:39:23 +0000 |
| Envelope-to: | [email protected] |
| In-reply-to: | <016101c61d02$12ceca40$2101a8c0@pcroelof> |
| References: | <[email protected]> <016101c61d02$12ceca40$2101a8c0@pcroelof> |
| Reply-to: | [email protected] |
| Sender: | [email protected] |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) |
| Z-usanet-msgid: | XID413kasRlj0112X31 |
Roelof Bakker wrote: In principle both antennas performed equally well in receiving NDB's. If there was a difference, the active whip gave just a little better result.Noise bursts hardly if at all audible on the active whip were very strong on the active loop. At many times, this also rendered the active loop useless for phasing purposes. Roelof, have you by any chance compared your active whip with the Amrad E-field probe? Both work on the same principles and it would be interesting to know how do they compare. 73 Alberto I2PHD P.S. Thanks for the PDF file. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | LF: TA Jan, 18/19th, Hartmut Wolff |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: LF: YO & CT1DRP, Dmitri |
| Previous by Thread: | LF: Mini Whip and local noise, Roelof Bakker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: Mini Whip and local noise, uwe-jannsen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |