RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Link-coupled loop - more

To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Link-coupled loop - more
From: Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 09:06:29 -0600
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Roger,

I will make this my last comment on this topic.

I thought about my comments of " a thousand hunts" and I certainly didn't do hunts 1 per week for 20 years. What I did do was to go out in the woods with my wife and daughter occasionally who would take 2 walkie talkies and talk to each other. They each had a beacon transmitter operating on 2 different frequencies. I then tracked down beacon #1, which was subsequently moved, while I hunted down beacon #2, which then was moved etc. The 2 beacons were about 1/4 mile or so apart in the woods and I could easily hunt about 25-30 beacons in a afternoon. This practice was very worthwhile and I could usually find the next beacon in less than 5 minutes but occasionally there was one which was difficult to find. Something like just over a ridge line so that knife edge refraction to the ridge caused a wide range of bearings to be seen would be problematic. Over time and with enough practice you get very good at dealing with a few bad bearings along the way and recognize possible pitfalls. This repertoire of experiences is incredibly valuable when DFing.

You are correct that most RFI signals have a significant vertical polarization component. I have found this to be true when more than several hundred feet from the source but not always when close to the source which is why I stop trying to use a null for bearings and instead rely on maximum signal. Also when close, the signal strength changes much more quickly for a given distance change. I am familiar with both the Adcock and Wullenweber antennas which are not portable. It would be interesting to get a dozen or so people who claim to be proficient at tracking down noise and see what equipment they use and how easily they find the noise source. I'm sure not all the equipment is not equal if we all had a chance to use the other person's gear that would be very instructive.

73,
Larry, W0QE



On 4/3/2014 7:50 AM, Roger Parsons wrote:
Larry:


There is no magic sense circuit design of which I am aware. My first DF 
receiver used a DF96 1.5V filament valve as the sense amplifier. My next used a 
germanium transistor which worked fine until I got too close to the hidden 
station's antenna and all went quiet. I've updated a bit since then.


Most locally received signals have a significant vertical polarisation 
component, and so the loop and sense whip can work well. The problem comes when 
there is a predominant horizontal component because this can skew both sense 
and bearing, as whilst a loop will respond to horizontally polarised signals it 
has no directivity in that case. A small movement will generally allow better 
results when one is fairly close to the target. In my experience, the real 
problem arises when trying to DF skywave signals, and even more so where ground 
wave and skywave are of similar strength.

There is a magic DF antenna, invented during WW1 by Frank Adcock. However, it 
would be difficult (but perhaps not impossible) to make an 80m one small enough 
to be carried around. Even better is the Wullenweber antenna, but that is 
definitely not remotely portable.

A thousand DF hunts is quite a lot - once a week summer and winter for nearly 
twenty years. I am not, and was not, saying that it is impossible to DF a 
source to a particular building. I was saying, and am saying, that accidental 
radiators usually couple into random conductors and that it is very easy indeed 
to be misled.

73 Roger
VE3ZI
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi


_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

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