Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

rsgb_lf_group
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: [email protected]lacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception
From: John Rabson <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:48:51 +0200
Cc: DK7FC <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=azl1au9U0uYmYyXOi2GYeeLtZW44R7aCr+7lCK0CxqU=; b=izkSqDQgOD5IauA5aPodPQUsBeGj7Y3cseLlXMrAjVZ1mIouwUi+T6LamB3j6W7bXV 8vQQmUuXygEZvR9OYcgStTz2MdcGJmWWytWIIepDumtqoRnhuGj1+WZz6eAZYfGjoF6W /r2wl2AaHiObQDSkgzQ/gTNwxCJS+5cgBw0M+CNiemIUtXwdjqBXhJy9wChER0S+725X 26knArFjSKbJe8rsjvoJU40tyA4gaMV5CINaeDqM6vBv6dFVTO1Izn2VAdhOnLfvqrSI JUALk/FsvrBJVwk6+VWQiHNrfxEaWO1soIQZSsvVqVM2q89OwH1bsgMQeUndryRsmmev Q5Rw==
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
DJ8WX’s page referred to below is reported by my system to be an “attack page”. 

John F5VLF

> On 18 Sep 2015, at 19:00, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> hi Stefan,
> pse see
> 
> http://dj8wx-dl.de/two.htm
> 
> 
> Uwe/dj8wx
> 
>  
> Von: DK7FC <[email protected]>
> Gesendet: 15.09.2015 16:17
> An: <[email protected]>
> Betreff: LF: Active E field antenna versus T antenna for LF/MF reception
>  
> 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
>  

[email protected]

Researching history of RABSON, BLACKSHAW, GAUNTLETT, VERLANDER and ROBSONNE






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