Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception

To: [email protected]
Subject: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception
From: DK7FC <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:12:27 +0200
In-reply-to: <CAL-VeeOKUcMQpq+cNwGkwUOJ_d-XBjrKnk3ULy=10MLidT-pOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL-VeeOKUcMQpq+cNwGkwUOJ_d-XBjrKnk3ULy=10MLidT-pOg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
Hi all,

Since a while i'm now comparing RX results between two omnidirrectional E field antennas. One of them is active (similar to the PA0RDT antenna), the other one is a T antenna, resonanted to the frequency of interest and matched to 50 Ohm... (So the T antenna could be used for transmitting). The small active antenna is inside a plastic tube, so (charged!) raindrops do not fall on the probe directly. The charge can flow to ground through the weak conducting water layer (probably in the range of 1E8 Ohm?).During rain i saw that the "QRN" was significantly higher on the T antenna.

So, could it be a better idea to use an active antenna (with a limited large signal capability and a non-perfect linearity!) instead of a "real" or "traditional" band-selective T antenna? Maybe worth to compare the results on a stereo RX ;-) I my imagination i see the active antenna with an umbrella to protect from rain (charged drops, |q| > 0). As higher the distance between probe and umbrella, the better the noise reduction and the lower the signal loss? Time to build and test the performance of an active E field probe consuming 5V/1mA...
Just some thoughts...

73, Stefan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>