Re: 8" Diameter FSL vs. 4' Sided PVC Air-core Loop Runoff
Hello Michael,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for your interest in Ferrite Sleeve Loop antennas, and for your comments on my post. <<<Would it be possible to do a three-fold comparison, including LW, between the 4' loop, the FSL and a single-ferrite such as the 7½" loopstick, all inductively coupled? Cost unfortunately renders the FSL unfeasible, and the big loop is unwieldy, so it would be valuable/comforting to know to what degree the basic single-ferrite would be inferior. >>> Yes, it certainly would be possible to do such a comparison, although because of limited experimental time here it's probably a little too ambitious to consider for the near future. In general a 7.5" loopstick (MW or LW) provides a quantum leap in DXing sensitivity over a stock Tecsun loopstick, and a serious-sized FSL (8" or larger) or air core tuned passive loop (4' side or larger) provides another quantum leap in sensitivity over the 7.5" loopstick. Regarding the relative reception capabilities of a 7.5" MW loopstick and a stock Tecsun-built model, detailed TP-DXing records were kept during a November 2008 DXpedition to Grayland, Washington, showing the huge sensitivity advantage provided by a transplanted 7.5" loopstick in an Eton E100 model. This "E100 Four Variant Shootout" article may be of interest to those who have wondered about this sensitivity advantage http://www.mediafire.com/?mjmn0xijxod . For those looking for an additional signal boost, I've personally had very good results with smaller air-core loops (2' and 3' sided) and FSL's (4" diameter), either of which can provide some additional MW or LW sensitivity beyond that of a 7.5" loopstick. <<<There was mention of a basic FSL with fewer ferrites spaced round the tube, but I have not seen any further reference to this. Not worth pursuing further?>>> Both Steve and Kevin (among others) have done extensive FSL experimentation before me, and I had a pretty late start because of a need to finish up 7.5" Longwave loopstick testing. I did some limited testing of a basic FSL with spacing between the ferrites, but was not satisfied with the results. Others who have done such testing may have other impressions, and I welcome their comments. In general (because of limited time), my objective was to determine whether the FSL design would provide a compact DXing breakthrough over existing antennas, and devote the necessary resources to test out the most effective designs as soon as possible. Presumably, the eBay sellers of surplus Russian ferrite are extremely grateful for this kind of attitude, and for the additional contributions of Steve and Kevin :-) <<<What would happen if ferrites of different origins, lengths and quality from old radios were used in a compromise FSL?>>> It's tough to give an accurate answer about this because nobody has yet tried it, to my knowledge. The results would probably depend on the size, quality and consistency in the ferrite rods, but it's doubtful that any such composite FSL would be competitive with the larger, standardized designs, in my opinion. <<<As an off-shoot, I would like to have a compact performing LW/MW receiver with a genuinely portable antenna. It would have to be either a single ferrite or a small loop.>>> This was the concept behind the recent development of the 7.5" MW and LW loopsticks for the Tecsun DSP models, Michael. These loopsticks have sensitive performance compared to the stock Tecsun antennas, and there have been many positive comments about their DXing results. Unfortunately there isn't much time here to make more of them in quantity, but the MW version article is posted at http://www.mediafire.com/?yummxhqeyjy , and the LW version article is posted at http://www.mediafire.com/?845snah2h4ek9z9 . A PL-380 model may be modified to accept either 7.5" loopstick (MW or LW) in a plug-in design, or a stock PL-360 model will accept either loopstick without the need for modification. <<<I am also interested in phasing out local interference from CFLs and digital sources by using a second aerial and a canceling circuit. Is there any information on this aspect in the group?>>> None that I am aware of, Michael. I know that this has been done extensively in the amateur radio community with noise-canceling antennas and phasing units, but not in relation to CFL's with Ultralight radios. 73 and Good DX, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA) -----Original Message-----
From: Michael <michael.setaazul@...> To: ultralightdx <ultralightdx@...> Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 12:42 am Subject: Re: [ultralightdx] 8" Diameter FSL vs. 4' Sided PVC Air-core Loop Runoff Thanks for the interesting, informative report, Gary! Would it be possible to do a three-fold comparison, including LW, between the 4' loop, the FSL and a single-ferrite such as the 7½" loopstick, all inductively coupled? Cost unfortunately renders the FSL unfeasible, and the big loop is unwieldy, so it would be valuable/comforting to know to what degree the basic single-ferrite would be inferior. There was mention of a basic FSL with fewer ferrites spaced round the tube, but I have not seen any further reference to this. Not worth pursuing further? What would happen if ferrites of different origins, lengths and quality from old radios were used in a compromise FSL? As an off-shoot, I would like to have a compact performing LW/MW receiver with a genuinely portable antenna. It would have to be either a single ferrite or a small loop. I am also interested in phasing out local interference from CFLs and digital sources by using a second aerial and a canceling circuit. Is there any information on this aspect in the group? Michael UK |
|