Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Small Loop does not receive weak signal on 160m BOUVET RX SPOIL

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Small Loop does not receive weak signal on 160m BOUVET RX SPOILER
From: "JC" <n4is@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 20:46:09 -0500
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>

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.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 e2cost−costφ2dt=e21−cosφ


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.

 

 

 

 

GIF image

_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>