Re: LF: Poor antennas

[Gary - G4WGT <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>]

Mal,

Most grabbers do not use the main antenna, I have only one main antenna for LF & MF so the grabber uses an active antenna which has got to be better than none, therefore no grabber.

73

Gary - G4WGT.

On 2 August 2011 20:24, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote:

Warren
I do not have a problem. I can see es hear them all but I am disappointed
how weak my signal looks on some of the EU grabbers compared to yester years
and some cannot hear me when I call for a QSO. Likewise they cannot hear/see
each other except they are vy local to one another.
BUT I do not use Probes OR Small loops. I use what one would call normal
LF/MF antennas.

de Mal/G3KEV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Ziegler" <wd2xgj@gmail.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Poor antennas


Mal,

 Don't discount the increased interference from switching power
supplies, plasma televisions, PLTs and the like.
Everyone is battling a higher noise floor these days.

My suggestion: get a sail boat and operate from it!


--
73 Warren K2ORS
WD2XGJ
WD2XSH/23
WE2XEB/2
WE2XGR/1



On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM, mal hamilton <g3kevmal@talktalk.net> wrote:
> LF
> It now takes hundreds of watts to be observed or heard around EU on 137
Khz
> whereas some years back less than 200 watts achieved a good result like a
> QSO on CW. The 130 watt Ropex used by many resulted in many CW QSO'S,
> In those days most Amateurs were using normal antennas like loaded inv L
> systems or some sort of vertical for both RX es TX.
> At present the trend seems to be probe or small loop antennas and these do
> not seem to produce enough signal capture to the RX.
> The DX that I have worked in the past all had large antenna systems.
> These are my observations, maybe others have another theory.
> de mal/g3kev
>