Alex I have several of these and they worked well. The new BPSK modulation
does not allow any of the traditional phase tracking receivers to work.
Paul/Ziggy mentioned NAA as an alternate. Granted its not NIST traceable
thats not its function. But as it turns out the things I thought made the
Ken
At least last night NAA was running just fine using a fluke 207 and 4 ft of
wire.
The antenna is behind a metal rack that shields it in NAAs direction. I did
that test out of curiosity.
Granted its 2 MW but then again the antenna is at best 50% efficient.
Who knows maybe they have sections of
Hi
I would be *very* surprised if the NAA antenna was 50% efficient (transmitter
RF to radiated power)…..
Given that it’s already up and running with good signal levels, that’s not a
big deal.
Bob
On Aug 16, 2014, at 10:24 AM, paul swed paulsw...@gmail.com wrote:
Ken
At least last night
Bob
The fact is its on the web. :-)
I was surprised that the documents said that also given most LF Ham systems
are very inefficient given what we have to work with in $ and space. But
then again its no an amateur installation. With 16 X 825 ft towers and
miles of wire over salt flats and water.
On 16 Aug 2014 at 11:33, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
I would be *very* surprised if the NAA antenna was 50% efficient (transmitter
RF
to radiated power).
According to this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/145116437/THE-BIGGEST-LITTLE-ANTENNA-IN
-THE-WORLD-US-Navy-s-VLF-antenna-at-Cutler-Maine
The
On 16 Aug 2014 at 12:48, paul swed wrote:
As a test this morning I connected the fluke 207 vlf radio that has a 1.1KHz
IF
out to a XY scope using a very stable 1.1 Khz synth function gen. Indeed the
msk
is a classic 4 corner eye pattern.
Kewel.
Also I looked at the tracor 900 de-MSK-r
On 16 Aug 2014 at 10:24, paul swed wrote:
Ken
At least last night NAA was running just fine using a fluke 207 and 4 ft of
wire. The antenna is behind a metal rack that shields it in NAAs direction.
Ha! At VLF you could probably bury your antenna in a grounded, steel pipe 4
feet into the
On 16 Aug 2014 at 12:31, paul swed wrote:
I wonder why? And I complain about my antennas.
It turns out that Cutler has a much-bigger-than-usual problem with
lightning...
Well, apparently, first of all, Cutler is situated in what turns out to be an
especially lightning-prone area
Kenneth on the opamps that is correct.
But I put little U's to indicate phase. They actually represent the top
half of the input cycle.
In the top path it inverts once
The bottom path twice.
So that makes the top 180 out and the bottom in phase with the original.
However the 2 X RC sets the bottom
On 16 Aug 2014 at 13:35, paul swed wrote:
Kenneth on the opamps that is correct.
But I put little U's to indicate phase. They actually represent the top half
of
the input cycle.
Yes, I saw those, but unless I am mistaken, you didn't add a U after the
second opamp, which would have
10 matches
Mail list logo
