To: | <[email protected]> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: Re: Mini-Whip Antenna |
From: | "DENNIS EASTERLING" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:46:37 -0000 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1295196398; bh=8IphSubZc9lo28JlVLIoxIp6RgEiH1inf2KK+fYd50A=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=yu6/k/TgGzATtpz7DatWQtJ65XkIPxnsE/cQdbC6VQkySaUwu9Azb+soCWnnEmNPzjGCR6y4PksgDgO3TlM8bnWLDVsBte713kRcJzMeaBAIdPDPEvYYJXVUfjtjr4i8gWofUnt+O9w7aBx8HZ/wOTulMTfpjdv4A2pDP6SbOEI= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=VM5l8gJ5f3SAso3MNPi9VSFaoxnXiWZ09tIEcLogkVbCVLgA7ILv/6XE2AAOsDbihjUDZMn/b3A5ePFatNn6X2zPePkdEP/EDZ7f/VRlgQ8sLMUz1H8Bu8TPbNseBjjUJSalME3DCpBZxCLlG1juLYQH8tT7/DmFICNfboRR9vY= ; |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
In-reply-to: | <015d01cbb57f$1feb9d00$0201a8c0@Clemens04> |
References: | <[email protected]> <op.vpan5am6yzqh0k@pc-roelof> <[email protected]> <op.vpat3gvlyzqh0k@pc-roelof> <04DC6D14A81F4542B1D2189A5440F3D5@DennisPC> <015d01cbb57f$1feb9d00$0201a8c0@Clemens04> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Clemens Thank you for your information. My homebrew untuned loops used adjacent balanced pre-amplifiers, but still suffered from local qrm. Papers I have read suggest that at lower frequencies, nearby metal objects effect the balance of unscreened loops. The screened loop I made of low loss coax, although less sensitive, enabled me to read stations on mf which were otherwise impossible, though in this case the amplifier was a grounded base followed by a grounded collector arrangement. The Wellbrook is better engineered of course, and is now steerable, so I benefit both ways. 73 Dennis M0JXM----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemens Paul" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:13 PM Subject: Re: LF: Re: Mini-Whip Antenna Dennis, if the loop-preamp system is well balanced the loop doesn't need screening. E.g. the Wellbrook ALA1530 broadband loop is unshielded. Therefore its preamp is a push-pull design. 73 Clemens DL4RAJ----- Original Message ----- From: "DENNIS EASTERLING" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:15 AM Subject: Re: LF: Re: Mini-Whip AntennaDear Roelof and Petr When I first tried the mini-whip I was very sceptical of its performance, but in my circumstances, living surrounded by houses and near a main line electric railway ((25kV) it has performed very well indeed. I tried tuned loops of various sizes but the qrm is overwhelming in such close quarters to the switched mode power units and machines operating innearby houses. Out of various loops, the wide band untuned screened loop seemed the best option, with a simple 1m loop of co-ax cable and amplifier tied to the back fence and the Wellbrook ALA1530 giving similar performance at MF, although the Welbrook is better engineered and mounted on a rotator.... |
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: Re: Re: Capacitance switch box design - what is the simplest?, Roger Lapthorn |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: Re: Capacitance switch box design - what is the simplest?, John Bruce McCreath |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: Mini-Whip Antenna, Clemens Paul |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: Mini-Whip Antenna, pws |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |