[Fwd: LF: good signals - deaf receivers]
Andre' Kesteloot
akestelo@bellatlantic.net
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:50:13 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------86E5248301BA3743EAC8D517
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rik Strobbe wrote:
> At 14:37 13/04/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >>From HB9ASB, JN36pt
> >
> >[...]It seems to me, that the real challenge on the LF
> >band is the receiving part and I think there is still a lot of work to
> >do. This includes also directional receiving aerials.
> >I am aware of the fact that some locations suffer from heavy local QRM
> >or Loran-splatter or have more Luxembourg-effect than others. On the
> >other hand are receivers suffering from front end overload,
> >inappropriate AGC-characteristics and large bandwidths far from the
> >optimum.
> >
> >
> >73 de Toni
> >
> >
> I can only agree with Toni. As owner of a QTH with very low man-made noise
> (QRM) but unfortunately poor 'ground conditions' (and thus rather low ERP)
> I know all about the frustration of hearing stations with 'armchair copy'
> and not being able to work them.
> With the very nice PA-designs of G3YXM and G0MRF it is easy to get several
> hundred Watts RF, but maybe now it is about time to focus more on the
> receiving side.
>
> My experience :
> I use my 13m high and 26m long inverted-L antenna also for receiving and if
> I connect this antenna directly to my TS440 I hear nothing but
> intermodulation products in the 135.7-137.8kHz segment. After adding an
> attenuator (10-40dB in 10dB steps) between antenna and RX a small miracle
> happens, all the sudden the band is clear and the weak ham-signals can be
> heard. Although I have only a 500Hz CW filter I can narrow the bandwidth by
> using the IF-shift and centering on 400Hz instead of the 'default' 800Hz.
> For my TS440 I found out that I have the optimum between signalstrength and
> 'intermodulation-surpression' when I receive the DBF39 (or DCF39) signal
> with about S7. By adding more attenuation I loose the weak signals in the
> internal RX noise, with less attenuation the intermodualtion-products show up.
> So maybe this 2 tips may be a help to others :
> 1. Use an (adjustable) attenuator between antenna and RX, focus on best
> ratio between the wanted ham-signals and the unwanted IM-products. And
> don't worry if the s-meter is not moving.
> 2. Use the IF-shift to narrow the RX bandwidth, it helps if you go from the
> default 800Hz 'beat' to 400Hz.
>
> 73, Rik
>
> Rik Strobbe ON7YD
> rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be
> Villadreef 14 B-3128 Baal BELGIUM (JO20IX)
--------------86E5248301BA3743EAC8D517
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from mail7.bellatlantic.net ([207.68.32.38])
by immta2.bellatlantic.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124)
with ESMTP id <19990414080913.MLGC20535@mail7.bellatlantic.net>
for <akestelo@bellatlantic.net>; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:09:13 -0400
Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [194.75.130.70])
by mail7.bellatlantic.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP
id DAA15913 for <akestelo@bellatlantic.net>; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 03:09:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from troy.blacksheep.org ([194.75.183.50] ident=root)
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3)
id 10XKcs-00054b-00; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:02:26 +0100
Received: (from root@localhost) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03233 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:59:53 GMT
Received: from post.thorcom.com (root@post.unica.co.uk [194.75.183.70]) by troy.blacksheep.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03229 for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:59:50 GMT
Received: from mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.8.44])
by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3)
id 10XKa8-0004yt-00
for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:59:36 +0100
Received: from LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be (LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.80.15])
by mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA07963
for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:04:04 +0200
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19990414085752.2f3f44f8@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
X-Sender: pb623250@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:57:52
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
From: Rik Strobbe <rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Re: LF: good signals - deaf receivers
In-Reply-To: <37133A8B.26E94D6D@phonakcom.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
At 14:37 13/04/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>From HB9ASB, JN36pt
>
>Now the band gets also busy here in Central Europe. Last weekend I've
>heard 17 different callsigns and sometimes it sounded like a "dialogue
>des sourdes": Strong signals but they did not hear each other.
>Alarming is the increasing number of stations with good signals and
>mediocre receivers. It seems to me, that the real challenge on the LF
>band is the receiving part and I think there is still a lot of work to
>do. This includes also directional receiving aerials.
>I am aware of the fact that some locations suffer from heavy local QRM
>or Loran-splatter or have more Luxembourg-effect than others. On the
>other hand are receivers suffering from front end overload,
>inappropriate AGC-characteristics and large bandwidths far from the
>optimum.
>
>
>73 de Toni
>
>
I can only agree with Toni. As owner of a QTH with very low man-made noise
(QRM) but unfortunately poor 'ground conditions' (and thus rather low ERP)
I know all about the frustration of hearing stations with 'armchair copy'
and not being able to work them.
With the very nice PA-designs of G3YXM and G0MRF it is easy to get several
hundred Watts RF, but maybe now it is about time to focus more on the
receiving side.
My experience :
I use my 13m high and 26m long inverted-L antenna also for receiving and if
I connect this antenna directly to my TS440 I hear nothing but
intermodulation products in the 135.7-137.8kHz segment. After adding an
attenuator (10-40dB in 10dB steps) between antenna and RX a small miracle
happens, all the sudden the band is clear and the weak ham-signals can be
heard. Although I have only a 500Hz CW filter I can narrow the bandwidth by
using the IF-shift and centering on 400Hz instead of the 'default' 800Hz.
For my TS440 I found out that I have the optimum between signalstrength and
'intermodulation-surpression' when I receive the DBF39 (or DCF39) signal
with about S7. By adding more attenuation I loose the weak signals in the
internal RX noise, with less attenuation the intermodualtion-products show up.
So maybe this 2 tips may be a help to others :
1. Use an (adjustable) attenuator between antenna and RX, focus on best
ratio between the wanted ham-signals and the unwanted IM-products. And
don't worry if the s-meter is not moving.
2. Use the IF-shift to narrow the RX bandwidth, it helps if you go from the
default 800Hz 'beat' to 400Hz.
73, Rik
Rik Strobbe ON7YD
rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be
Villadreef 14 B-3128 Baal BELGIUM (JO20IX)
--------------86E5248301BA3743EAC8D517--