[Lowfer] AMRAD E-Field Probe VS Loops

[Douglas D. Williams]

As the owner of both the Wellbrook LFL1010 loop and (recently) the Clifton
Labs e-probe, I can tell you that both antennas are of excellent quality.
During the 2010/2011 winter, I believe I copied every active Lowfer station
using the LFL1010. Loops are very good for rejecting local e-field noise
and, of course, have the property of a figure 8 pattern of reception with
two deep nulls. The downside is, you need a rotor to turn the loop, and you
have to make sure the station(s) you are trying to receive are not in the
loop's nulls.

I have only owned the Clifton Labs antenna for a short time, but am
extremely impressed with it's sensitivity, and, coupled with the Z1203
coupler, it's ability to eliminate local noise which can be carried out to
the antenna on the coax shield. I am looking forward to trying out the
Clifton Labs antenna this winter on Lowfer signals as well as the 9kHz
"dreamer's band".

IMO, the ideal arrangement would be to have both a good quality e-probe as
well as a good quality loop.

If I could only have one, I would go with the e-probe, if (for nothing else)
the sheer convenience of an omnidirectional antenna.

-Doug KB4OER






On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Dick Goodman <wa3usg at verizon.net> wrote:

> Gang,
>
>    I have recently rebuilt my AMRAD E-Field probe and feel that it is
> working quite well. I have also thought several times about building a
> shielded loop, in particular, VE7SL's loop detailed in the link below:
>
>    http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl/burhans.html
>
>    A couple of parameters in reference to my current E-Field probe are
> shown below. These stations were received from Mechanicsburg, PA. at 9:30
> AM
> local time. Receiver used is the SDR/IQ running WINRAD Plus:
>
>    WWVB (with tunable preamp turned on)
>    http://mysite.verizon.net/wa3usg/WWVB.jpg
>
>    The 24 KHz signal from Cutler Maine (no preamp)
>    http://mysite.verizon.net/wa3usg/cutler.jpg
>
>    Any opinions in reference to sensitivity & performance of my system
> would be appreciated. Are these parameters valid in reference to
> determining
> benchmarks in system performance? Do you think a loop would improve things?
>
> 73
> Dick, WA3USG
> Mechanicsburg, PA.
> FN10LE
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>