I was one of the 160m ops at "nearby" FT5XO. I can tell you that when
the
WX was good the TX antennas worked very well for receiving. When the
WX turned bad, such as during the snow storm we worked through, the 160m
TX antennas
were very noisy....just as noisy as those anywhere on the planet.
Don't get me started about those awful 160m fishing buoy transmitters!!
73,
Charlie, N0TT
On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 19:45:28 -0700 Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org> writes:
> 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-antenna.p
hp>
> 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 ? for a given radio wave is
> >
> >
> >
> > es = [2pA Es /?] COS(?)
> >
> >
> >
> > where Es is the signal strength in volts per meter and ? 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 = [2pA Es /?] [1 + COS(?)]
> >
> > .
> > 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 = [2pA Es /?] [1 + kCOS(?)]
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 = v(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 = 2pfL 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 = [2pA Es /?]/v(4kTRB) = [66Af/v(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 = 2pL.
> Well never mind. Based on personal on hands experience building
> small loops, I believe R = 2pL 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[2pA Es/?]/v(4kTv((2pfL)^2 + (Rflag)^2)B) =
> [322Af/v(v((2pfL)^2 + (Rflag)^2)B)]Es .
> >
> >
> > Now let us calculate a SNR. Consider a flag 15' by 15' with
> inductance 24 �H 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 f 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 ev(1 � COS( f)) where e
> is the amplitude of the RMS signal, in other
> > words,
> > A=? 1
> > 2p?
> > 0
> > 2p
> > 2 e2?cos?t?-cos?t?f??2dt=e?2?1-cos?f?
> >
> >
> > The gain or loss for a signal passing through the combiner due to
> their phase difference is thus v(1 � COS( f)).
> > 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 a, then the
> distance d which determines the phase difference between
> > the two signals is d = s COS(a). If s is given in feet, then the
> conversion of d to meters is d = s COS(a)/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(a)/3.28 nS
> > when s is in meters. The phase difference in degrees is thus f =
> 0.36Tf = 0.36 f x 3.34 s COS(a)/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 f = 0.36(T +
> T')f = 0.36f(T' + 3.34 s COS(a)/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
> >
> >
> > f = 0.37f(L/VF + s COS(a))
> >
> >
> >
> > where f is the frequency of the signal in MHz, s is in feet, L is
> in feet, and a 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
> >
> >
> > f = 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
> >
> >
> > v(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 = 2pAEs/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
|