Wes
I missed the second question. How a receiving antenna can help on your signal
there. The RX antenna is good as the directivity or RDF. Based on my
measurements and extensive experiments with the Waller Flag, for 1 db improve
in RDF you can get 2db or more on signal to noise ratio aiming at the signal,
plus de rejection on side and back nulls. You can check more about this on my
webinar at WWROF
https://wwrof.org/webinar-archive/high-performance-rx-antennas-for-a-small-lot/
I measured 2db over 100 tests or more, including using WSJT SN readings. It is
a practical result, not just computer simulation.
With a good RX antenna 11 to 12 dB RDF you can work 150 counties on 160 any 12
month period. I did it for 10 years. Using a Waller Flag, Doug NX4D, worked
314 on 160m from a 1/5 acre lot. All CW.
I started with a vertical WF on 2003, and an Horizontal Waller Flag in 2010,
the noise here in my city lot is very high now, and my Vertical Waller Flag is
down because the HWF does not see the vertical manmade noise, so I have no
noise on the HWF. I worked in the last 10 year close to 300 countries on 160m,
only CW, and I am now at 305, however I heard over 320 countries down here in
South Florida from a city lot. The VWF can dig signals on CW 10 db below noise
and my HWF can dig 20 db bellow noise, when you compare with the TX antenna. I
can measure that as well, with 2 instances on WSJT on my radio two identical
receivers, a signal -20 SNR on the vertical shows a 0 db on the HWF.
More information about the HWF here >
https://wwrof.org/webinar-archive/n4is-waller-flag-construction/
You can download the presentation too, Doug and I do not provide any additional
support or question anymore, we spent hundred of hours on it and few people
listened us.
So, conclusion a RX antenna can dig you signal out of the noise.
73's
JC
N4IS
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband <topband-bounces+n4is=comcast.net@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Wes
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:45 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Small Loop does not receive weak signal on 160m BOUVET RX
SPOILER
All interesting. But let me ask (and standby for flames) what is wrong with
them simply listening on the TX antenna?
I know, I know, conventional wisdom says that you can't possibly work 160 DX
without a separate RX antenna. I'll confess that I am a little pistol and will
never be on the TB Honor Roll, but I got on the band just to add another DXCC
band to my collection (now nine). I'm now at 144 confirmed, running just 500W
and a 55' inverted-L on both TX and RX. Generally speaking I hear better that I
get out.
Looking at my chances of working 3Y the optimum time is their sunrise (~3:30Z)
when I am in complete darkness and straight across the terminator. They will
have the sunlit ocean to their rear and the S. American landmass toward me.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I fail to see how a directional antenna
will improve the SNR of my signal at their end.
Wes N7WS
On 12/23/2022 6:46 PM, JC wrote:
> Hi topband lovers
>
>
>
> Some friends contact me with deep concerns about the next Bouvet DX
> expedition receiver antenna called SALAD
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.lz1aq.signacor.com/docs/active-wideband-directional-antenn
> a.php> Salad antenna
>
>
>
> I understand the concerns, Bouvet on 160m is a lifetime opportunity for most
> top-banders!
>
>
>
> When Doug NX4D, me N4IS and Dr Dallas started to try to understand the
> limitation of the new Waller Flag, the first big question was;
>
>
>
> How small a loop antenna can be to receive weak signal on 160, or MW?
>
>
>
> Dr. Dallas Lankford III (SK), measured the internal noise of a small loop.
> 15x15 FT on his quiet QTH, and wrote a paper with the derivation necessary to
> calculate the thermal noise of a small loop. The study most important point
> was:
>
>
>
> The sensitivity of small loop antennas can be limited by internally
> generated thermal noise which is a characteristic of the loop itself.
> Even amplifying the loop output with the lowest noise figure preamp
> available may not improve the loop sensitivity if manmade noise drops
> low enough
>
>
>
> The noise on Bouvet island will be very low, < -120 dBm at 500Hz, and for
> sure the internal thermal noise of the prosed RX antenna will limit the
> reception of weak signals on 160m, it may work on 80 and above, but for 160
> m, it will be a set up for failure.
>
>
>
> Why not a single, trustable beverage antenna over the ice or snow?? Or a
> proved K9AY or a DHDL??
>
>
>
> Below is the almost good transcript of the original pdf Flag Theory, for the
> long answer.
>
>
>
>
>
> 73’s
>
> JC
>
> N4IS
>
>
>
> Flag Theory
> Dallas Lankford, 1/31/09, rev. 9/9/09
>
>
> The derivation which follows is a variation of Belrose's classical
> derivation for ferrite rod loop antennas, “Ferromagnetic Loop Aerials,”
> Wireless Engineer, February 1955, 41– 46.
>
>
> Some people who have not actually compared the signal output of a flag
> antenna to other small antennas have expressed their opinions to me that the
> signal output of a flag antenna has great attenuation compared to those other
> small antennas, such as loops and passive verticals. Their opinions are
> wrong. One should never express opinions which are based, say, on computer
> simulations alone, without actual measurements. The development below is
> based on physics (including Maxwell's equations), mathematics, and
> measurements.
>
>
> Measurements have confirmed that the flag signal to noise formula derived
> below is approximately correct despite EZNEC simulations to the contrary. For
> example, EZNEC simulation of a 15' square loop at 1 MHz predicts its gain is
> about +4 dbi, while on the other hand EZNEC simulation of a 15' square flag
> at 1 MHz predicts its gain is about –46 dBi. But if you construct such a loop
> and such a flag and observe the signal strengths produced by them for daytime
> groundwave MW signals, you will find that the maximum loop and flag signal
> outputs are about equal. Although somewhat more difficult to judge, the
> nighttime sky wave MW signals are also about equal.
>
>
> Also, the signal to noise ratio formula below for flag arrays has been
> verified by manmade noise measurements in the 160 meter band using a smaller
> flag array than the MW flag array discussed below. Several years ago a
> similar signal to noise ratio formula for small un-tuned (broadband) loop
> antennas was verified at the low end of the NDB band.
>
>
> The signal voltage es in volts for a one turn loop of area A in meters
> and a signal of wavelength λ for a given radio wave is
>
>
>
> es = [2πA Es /λ] COS(θ)
>
>
>
> where Es is the signal strength in volts per meter and θ is the angle
> between the plane of the loop and the radio wave. It is well known
> that if an omnidirectional antenna, say a short whip, is attached to
> one of the output terminals of the loop and the phase difference
> between the loop and vertical and the amplitude of the whip are
> adjusted to produce a cardioid patten, then this occurs for a phase
> difference of 90 degrees and a whip amplitude equal to the amplitude
> of the loop, and the signal voltage in this case is
>
>
>
> es = [2πA Es /λ] [1 + COS(θ)]
>
> .
> Notice that the maximum signal voltage of the cardioid antenna is twice the
> maximum signal voltage of the loop (or vertical) alone.
>
> A flag antenna is a one turn loop antenna with a resistance of several
> hundred ohms inserted at some point into the one turn. With a rectangular
> turn, with the resistor appropriately placed and adjusted for the appropriate
> value, the flag antenna will generate a cardioid pattern. The exact mechanism
> by which this occurs is not given here. Nevertheless, based on measurements,
> the flag antenna signal voltage is approximately the same as the cardioid
> pattern given above. The difference between an actual flag and the cardioid
> pattern above is that an actual flag pattern is not a perfect cardioid for
> some cardioid geometries and resistors.
>
>
>
> In general a flag pattern will be
>
> es = [2πA Es /λ] [1 + kCOS(θ)]
>
>
>
> where k is a constant less than or equal to 1, say 0.90 for a “poor” flag, to
> 0.99 or more for a “good” flag. This has virtually no effect of the maximum
> signal pickup, but can have a significant effect on the null depth.
>
>
> 1- The thermal output noise voltage en for a loop is
>
>
>
> en = √(4kTRB)
>
>
>
> where k (1.37 x 10^–23) is Boltzman's constant, T is the absolute temperature
> (taken as 290), (Belrose said:) R is the resistive component of the input
> impedance, (but also according to Belrose:) R = 2πfL where L is the loop
> inductance in Henrys, and B is the receiver bandwidth in Hertz.
>
>
>
> When the loop is rotated so that the signal is maximum, the signal to
> noise ratio is
>
>
>
> SNR = es/en = [2πA Es /λ]/√(4kTRB) = [66Af/√(LB)]Es .
>
>
>
> The point of this formula is that the sensitivity of small loop antennas can
> be limited by internally generated thermal noise which is a characteristic of
> the loop itself. Even amplifying the loop output with the lowest noise figure
> preamp available may not improve the loop sensitivity if manmade noise drops
> low enough.
>
>
>
> Notice that on the one hand Belrose said R is the resistive component
> of the input impedance, but on the other hand R = 2πL. Well never
> mind. Based on personal on hands experience building small loops, I
> believe R = 2πL is approximately correct. What I believe Belrose meant
> is that R is the magnitude of the output impedance. For a flag antenna
> rotated so the signal is maximum, the signal to noise ratio is
>
>
>
> SNR = es/en = 2[2πA Es/λ]/√(4kT√((2πfL)^2 + (Rflag)^2)B) =
> [322Af/√(√((2πfL)^2 + (Rflag)^2)B)]Es .
>
>
> Now let us calculate a SNR. Consider a flag 15' by 15' with inductance
> 24 μH at 1.0 MHz with 910 ohm flag resistor, and a bandwidth of B =
> 6000 Hz. Then A = 20.9 square meters and SNR = 2.86x10^6 Es . If Es is in
> microvolts, the SNR formula becomes SNR = 2.9 Es .
>
>
> Any phased array has loss (or in some cases gain) due to the phase
> difference of the signals from the two antennas which are combined to
> produce the nulls. This loss (or gain) depends on (1) the separation
> of the two antennas, (2) the arrival angle of the signal, and (3) the
> method used to phase the two flags. Let φ be the phase difference for
> a signal arriving at the two antennas. It can be shown by integrating
> the difference of the squares of the respective cosine functions that
> the amplitude A of the RMS voltage output of the combiner given RMS
> inputs with amplitudes e is equal to e√(1 – COS( φ)) where e is the
> amplitude of the RMS signal, in other words, A= 1 2π∫
> 0
> 2π
> 2 e2cost−costφ2dt=e21−cosφ
>
>
> The gain or loss for a signal passing through the combiner due to their phase
> difference is thus √(1 – COS( φ)).
> Let us consider the best case, when the signal arrives from the
> maximum direction. For a spacing s between the centers of the flags,
> if the arrival angle is α, then the distance d which determines the phase
> difference between the two signals is d = s COS(α). If s is given in feet,
> then the conversion of d to meters is d = s COS(α)/3.28.
>
>
> The reciprocal of the velocity of light 1/2.99x10^8 = 3.34 nS/meter is
> the time delay per meter of light (or radio
> waves) in air. So the phase difference of the two signals above in
> terms of time is T = 3.34 s COS(α)/3.28 nS when s is in meters. The
> phase difference in degrees is thus φ = 0.36Tf = 0.36 f x 3.34 s
> COS(α)/3.28 where f is the frequency of the signals in MHz. If
> additional delay T' is added (phase shift to generate nulls or to
> adjust the reception pattern), then the phase difference is φ = 0.36(T
> + T')f = 0.36f(T' + 3.34 s COS(α)/3.28) . If the additional delay is
> implemented with a length of coax L feet long with velocity factor VF,
> then the phase delay is
>
>
> φ = 0.37f(L/VF + s COS(α))
>
>
>
> where f is the frequency of the signal in MHz, s is in feet, L is in feet,
> and α is the arrival angle.
>
>
> 2-
>
>
> In the case of the flag array above in the maximum direction there are
> two sources of delay, namely 60.6 feet of coax with velocity factor
> 0.70, and 100 feet of spacing between the two flag antennas. The phase
> delay at 1.0 MHz for a 30 degree arrival angle is thus
>
>
> φ = 0.37 x 1.0 x (60.6/0.70 + 100 COS(30)) = 64.1 degrees.
>
>
> Thus the signal loss in the maximum direction at 30 degree arrival
> angle due to spacing and the phaser is
>
>
> √(1 – COS( 64.1)) = 0.75 or 20 log(0.75/2) = –8.5 dB.
>
>
> Now comes the interesting part. What happens when we phase the WF
> array with dimensions and spacing given above? The flag thermal noise
> output doubles (two flags), and the flag signal output decreases (due to
> spacing and phaser loss), so the SNR is degraded by 14.5 dB to SNR = 0.55 Es .
>
>
>
> So a signal of 1.8 microvolts per meter is equivalent to the thermal noise
> floor of the flag array.
>
>
> On some occasions, when manmade noise drops to very low levels at my
> location, it appeared to fall below the thermal noise floor of the WF
> array. By that I mean that the characteristic “sharp” manmade noise
> changed character to a “smooth” hiss. To determine whether this was the case,
> I measured the manmade noise at my location for one of these low noise events
> at 1.83 MHz.
>
>
> To measure manmade noise at my location I converted one of the flags of my MW
> flag array to a loop. The loop was 15' by 15', or 20.9 square meters. I used
> my R-390A whose carrier (S) meter indicates signals as low as –127 dBm. The
> meter indication was 4 dB. Then I used an HP-8540B signal generator to
> determine the dBm value for 4 dB on the R-390A meter. It was –122 dBm. Now
> the fun begins. The RDF of a loop for an arrival angle of 20 degrees (the
> estimated wave tilt of manmade noise at 1.83 MHz) was 4 dB. So now manmade
> noise after factoring out the loop directionality was estimated as –118 dBm.
>
>
>
> Field strength is open circuit voltage equivalent, which gives us –112
> dBm. I measured MM noise on the R-390A with a 6 kHz BW. The conversion
> to 500 Hz is
>
>
>
> –10 log(6000/500) = –10.8,
>
>
>
> which gives us –122.8 or –123 dBm.
>
>
>
> The conversion to 500 Hz was necessary in order to be consistent with the SNR
> above which was calculated for a 500 Hz BW.
>
>
>
> The loop equation is es = 2πAEs/lambda = 0.41 Es, and 20 log(0.41) = –7.7,
> rounded off to - 8, so we have -115 dBm, or 0.40 microvolts per meter for my
> lowest levels of manmade noise at 1.83 MHz in a 500 Hz bandwidth.
>
>
>
> This seemed impossibly low to me until I came across the ITU graph at right.
> Manmade noise at quiet rural locations may be even lower than 0.40
> microvolts per meter at 1.83 MHz. But what about the MW band? From the CCIR
> Report 322 we find that the manmade noise field strength on the average is
> about 10 dB higher at 1.0 MHz than 1.83 MHz, which would make it 1.26
> microvolts per meter at 1.0 MHz. Another 4 dB is added because of impedance
> mismatch between the R-390A and the loop, which brings manmade noise up to
> 2.0 microvolts per meter at 1.0 MHz. The RDF of one of these flags is about 7
> dB, which lowers the manmade noise to 0.89 microvolts per meter. Observations
> in the 160 meter band do not seem to agree exactly with this analysis because
> flag thermal noise has never been heard on the MW flag array. But it would
> not surprise me at all if the flag array thermal noise floor were only a few
> dB below received minimum daytime manmade noise and that measurement error
> (for example, calibration of my HP 8640B) accounts for the difference between
> measurement and theory. Also, observations with a flag array having flag
> areas half the size of the MW flag elements in the 160 meter band do confirm
> the signal to noise ratio formula; in this case, flag thermal noise does
> dominate minimum daytime manmade noise at my location (0.40 microvolts per
> meter field strength measured as described above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________
> Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|