Date   

ZIZ Radio

Tony Germanotta
 

Ziz Radio, 555, is coming in strong in Virginia right now. Must be the super full moon or the 80 degree surprise temperatures. Chico's Off the Hook Show is pounding in. I am using a hoop loop right now with a Tecsun 310, but it is strong enough for bareback reception.


Congratulations to Patrick Vignoud-- 15 Ultralight DXCC Countries Heard on Longwave!

Gary DeBock
 

Hello All,

The new Ultralight NDB-chasing craze has now spread into the general
NDB-DXing community, inspiring some very experienced beacon chasers to
give Ultralight DXing a try. We congratulate Patrick Vignoud of France
(the ex-REU Co-Editor for the NDB data base
http://www.classaxe.com/dx/ndb) for his amazing success of receiving 15
different DXCC countries (and over 100 stations) during his first four
days of Ultralight beacon chasing! Patrick accomplished this with his
new 7.5" LW loopstick PL-380, which fortunately arrived in France right
at the beginning of his week off.

Although my Awards Committee co-conspirator Rob Ross is currently on a
tropical cruise ship (recovering from his frozen outdoor NDB-chasing
sessions in London, Ontario), I don't think that Rob will mind if I
issue this award all by myself-- especially since Patrick is one of the
foremost experts on European NDB stations :-) Congratulations on your
great DXing so far, Patrick, and we wish you the best of Ultralight
beacon-chasing in the future!

73, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)


Ultralight Longwave DX-- 2 New NDB's (Plus the First LW-TP of the New Year)

Gary DeBock
 

Hello All,

The LW conditions were decent to Canada this early morning (around 0900
UTC), and several unusual beacons from AB, SK and MB were putting in
good signals here. A detailed search over the NDB range produced only
one new logging, though-- 379-YBE in Uranium City, SK (1,000 mi.). Some
nice relogs showed up, though, including 400-FN in Ft. Collins, CO (my
only one from that state so far), and both 248-WG and 284-QD from
Manitoba. The Longwave TP 279-Radio Rossii even showed up around 0915
to crash the NDB-chasing party, becoming the first Trans-Pacific
broadcast station heard here since the Ultralight NDB-chasing craze
started in January. These were all heard on the 7.5" LW loopstick ("G"
Model) PL-380, identical to the models owned by Patrick, Rob, and Kevin.

The other "new" logging came unexpectedly from a recording of 353-LLD
(Lanai, Hawaii) made on March 12, during the testing of an experimental
FSL here. Around 0800 UTC 353-LLD had a fairly good signal under local
pest 353-RNT (Renton, WA, at 20 miles), so I made an MP3 for reference.
http://www.mediafire.com/?bk5vf7742a47d96
After listening to the MP3 with headphones yesterday, I noticed two
other weak stations mixing in-- 350-NY in Enderby, BC (also somewhat of
a pest), and a non-DAID station which was the weakest of all ("ON").
Interestingly, there were two possible "ON" beacon stations listed
within 3 kHz of the recorded (353 kHz) frequency (3 kHz is the usual
maximum slop range of a beacon when the PL-380 is in the 1 kHz DSP
setting). Non-DAID beacon 350-ON is in Newport, OR (and had never been
heard here), while DAID beacon 356-ON is in Penticton, BC (and had been
heard here many times). The fact that the recorded "ON" had no DAID
(dash after ID) made the difference in logging 350-ON in Newport, OR as
a new station here, for NDB #147 (six days late :-)

73, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

ferrite61 <dxrx@...>
 

Graham, the page you referenced is of the "MnZn" chemistry. These have high permeability and also have the property of being low-electric-resistance. As such these types of ferrites work best under 100kHz, and the highest permeability chemistries work best at audio frequencies of Electro-Magnetic Radiation.

The proper chemistry can be MnZn, but must have a lower permeability of say 500 to 1000. These will offer less loss at NDB, and Intrnational LW broadcast frequencies (less than 500kHz). But I point out here that two types of "NiZn" chemistry can also work quite well in the region of 150kHz or more. Here is a page from NMG (National Magnetics Group)...

http://www.magneticsgroup.com/m_ferr_nizn.htm

The type"M" is the familiar #61 mix, and the type "N or G3" is close to #33 material. Of note is the Resistivity being about 5 to 8 orders of magnitude higher than a "MnZn" formulation.

Compare the properties to the MnZn types of ferrites found at

http://www.magneticsgroup.com/m_ferr_mnzn.htm

Looking at the Resistivity figures, these MnZn types are nearly an electric conductor. The low Electric Resistance interferes with the coiled-wire Electric Resistance (charge-motion), induced by the inductor-core's Magnetic Field, in the wire. MnZn types of inductors usualy are operated such that the core saturates, alowing the transfer of Electric-Charge-Motion to occur. What we want in a radio reciever is just the opposite: mutual exclusion (isolation) of the Electric Field and Magnetic Field (or the best approximation permitted). This is the reason why an Electric Insulator is needed between the coil and ferrite. Such Electric Insulator must also have a low "Magnetic-Resistance", that is the material must be nearly "transparent" to the Magnetic field. Materials that fit these desired properties include Teflon. Polyethylene (HDPE/LDPE), Polypropylene (PP) and in general "Polyolefins" such as heat-shrink tubing, and Polystyrene (PS) types of Plastics. We can look at the two properties described here as "di-electric constant" for the Electric Resistance: Air = 1.00. For the Magnetic Field Loss or "Magnetic Opagueness" we can look at the property of "Dissipation @ Frequency" or Dissipation. This IS dependent upon frequency for ceertain materials. The lower this number, the better, indicating less loss of the magnetic field through the material. HDPE, and Polystyrene (Pure and Clear) are generally 0.001 at 1 MHz, Polypropylene is also good being 0.001 - 0.003.

Now we can look at this dissipation as the inverse of Q (figure of Merit) and therefore approximate that these Plastics have a Q-value of say 300 to 1000 depending upon material and frequency.

So not only is the type of ferrite imprortant, the insulation is also important. Combined, these two elements help to obtain the highest Q-value inductor.

Paul S. in CT

--- In ultralightdx@..., "Graham" <graham.maynard1@...> wrote:

Hi Steve,

I only put that page up in case of interest because it came up via a search and showed equivalents.

So is initial permeability THE determining characteristic I wonder ?
Maybe the nature of the molecular structure is more important.

Were any of rod ferrite types so far tried the same as the type I use, so that these might be used ?

Cheers .......... Graham.






--- In ultralightdx@..., "Steve Ratzlaff" <steveratz@> wrote:

Hi Graham,
The initial permeability of the Chinese-manufactured A2 Nickel/Zinc 100 mm x
10 mm ferrite rods you are using, purchased from the UK company Rapid
Online, is approximately 125, which corresponds to the Fair-Rite "-61" rods
used for MW loopstick antennas that the US distributor Amidon carries. The
initial permeability could never be 10,000 that you wonder about--that would
never make a good MW rod.
The Indian company Cosmos that you reference only makes ferrite for use in
power applications--they do indeed have types with very high permeability
such as 10,000. Those might be suitable for antenna use but only in very low
frequencies up to perhaps 100 kHz. Their catalog mentions testing results
done at up to 100 kHz, for power applications.
73,
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham" <graham.maynard1@>
To: <ultralightdx@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [ultralightdx] Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not
recommended for an LF FSL


Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite
rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is
circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves
useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like
multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8"
rod !

Cheers .......... Graham.


Re: Working on ferrite bars

Mike <tuggle@...>
 

--- In ultralightdx@..., peter.keller@... wrote:
. . . Is there an accurate and prooven method for breaking a ferrite bar so, that you get 2 truly identical parts? . . .
Using a sharp triangular file, score a ~0.5 mm deep groove all the way around the rod. With rod on flat surface, GENTLY tap the groove with cold chisel and small hammer. One tap should do it.

Any roughness at the break can be polished up with ordinary aluminum oxide grit sand paper.

Good luck. It's worked for me, many times. -Mike-


Re: Working on ferrite bars

ferrite61 <dxrx@...>
 

I cant think of a perfect method.... however one way that has shown promise was to score the rods with a diamond scribe around the circumference, and use an industrial tile-shear to finish the break. keep the "falling piece" suspended over a folded towel to help eliminate breakage.

Best I can remember.

Paul S. in CT

--- In ultralightdx@..., peter.keller@... wrote:

Hi all

As I understand 100mm ferrite bars are the better choice for a FSA than the 200mm bars I own. Is there an accurate and prooven method for breaking a ferrite bar so, that you get 2 truly identical parts? Sawing with traditional blades does not work for me. Any hints?

Peter
8"MW Loopstick PL-380 in Switzerland


Working on ferrite bars

slowfly55
 

Hi all

As I understand 100mm ferrite bars are the better choice for a FSA than the 200mm bars I own. Is there an accurate and prooven method for breaking a ferrite bar so, that you get 2 truly identical parts? Sawing with traditional blades does not work for me. Any hints?

Peter
8"MW Loopstick PL-380 in Switzerland


Re: ULR-NDB log from France - Thursday evening

Patrick <aunumero73@...>
 

Sorry for the bad-looking layout...
I don't know what happened to my log.

--- In ultralightdx@..., Patrick <aunumero73@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I was a bit tired last night, but I nevertheless managed a short listening
session before falling asleep.
11 NEW ONES were heard this time, including a NEW DXCC : Serbia (# 15).

380.0 17/03/2011 2108 HO F Colmar / Houssen 445.0 17/03/2011 2236 TU BIH
Tuzla 428.0 17/03/2011 2243 RY F Royan / Medis 399.0 17/03/2011 2315 WDB D
Wiesbaden 322.0 17/03/2011 2324 TLN F Hyeres / Le Palyvestre 323.0
17/03/2011 2330 AB F Albi / Le Sequestre 398.0 17/03/2011 2337 MT F St
Nazaire / Montoir 401.0 17/03/2011 2338 LA F Laval / Entrammes 415.0
17/03/2011 2343 POZ SRB Beograd / Pozarevac *NEW DXCC* 424.0 17/03/2011 2348
PIS HRV Zagreb / Pleso / Pisarovina 320.0 17/03/2011 2328 TY F Troyes /
Barberey

TOTAL : 113 NDB - 15 DXCC

Patrick, south-east France
7.5"LW loopstick PL-380 by Gary.


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

graham.maynard1
 

Hi Steve,

I only put that page up in case of interest because it came up via a search and showed equivalents.

So is initial permeability THE determining characteristic I wonder ?
Maybe the nature of the molecular structure is more important.

Were any of rod ferrite types so far tried the same as the type I use, so that these might be used ?

Cheers .......... Graham.

--- In ultralightdx@..., "Steve Ratzlaff" <steveratz@...> wrote:

Hi Graham,
The initial permeability of the Chinese-manufactured A2 Nickel/Zinc 100 mm x
10 mm ferrite rods you are using, purchased from the UK company Rapid
Online, is approximately 125, which corresponds to the Fair-Rite "-61" rods
used for MW loopstick antennas that the US distributor Amidon carries. The
initial permeability could never be 10,000 that you wonder about--that would
never make a good MW rod.
The Indian company Cosmos that you reference only makes ferrite for use in
power applications--they do indeed have types with very high permeability
such as 10,000. Those might be suitable for antenna use but only in very low
frequencies up to perhaps 100 kHz. Their catalog mentions testing results
done at up to 100 kHz, for power applications.
73,
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham" <graham.maynard1@...>
To: <ultralightdx@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [ultralightdx] Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not
recommended for an LF FSL


Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite
rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is
circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves
useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like
multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8"
rod !

Cheers .......... Graham.


ULR-NDB log from France - Thursday evening

Patrick <aunumero73@...>
 

Hi all,

I was a bit tired last night, but I nevertheless managed a short listening session before falling asleep.
11 NEW ONES were heard this time, including a NEW DXCC : Serbia (# 15).

380.0 17/03/2011 2108 HO F Colmar / Houssen 445.0 17/03/2011 2236 TU BIH Tuzla 428.0 17/03/2011 2243 RY F Royan / Medis 399.0 17/03/2011 2315 WDB D Wiesbaden 322.0 17/03/2011 2324 TLN F Hyeres / Le Palyvestre 323.0 17/03/2011 2330 AB F Albi / Le Sequestre 398.0 17/03/2011 2337 MT F St Nazaire / Montoir 401.0 17/03/2011 2338 LA F Laval / Entrammes 415.0 17/03/2011 2343 POZ SRB Beograd / Pozarevac *NEW DXCC* 424.0 17/03/2011 2348 PIS HRV Zagreb / Pleso / Pisarovina 320.0 17/03/2011 2328 TY F Troyes / Barberey

TOTAL : 113 NDB - 15 DXCC

Patrick, south-east France
7.5"LW loopstick PL-380 by Gary.


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

Steve Ratzlaff <steveratz@...>
 

Hi Graham,
The initial permeability of the Chinese-manufactured A2 Nickel/Zinc 100 mm x 10 mm ferrite rods you are using, purchased from the UK company Rapid Online, is approximately 125, which corresponds to the Fair-Rite "-61" rods used for MW loopstick antennas that the US distributor Amidon carries. The initial permeability could never be 10,000 that you wonder about--that would never make a good MW rod.
The Indian company Cosmos that you reference only makes ferrite for use in power applications--they do indeed have types with very high permeability such as 10,000. Those might be suitable for antenna use but only in very low frequencies up to perhaps 100 kHz. Their catalog mentions testing results done at up to 100 kHz, for power applications.
73,
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham" <graham.maynard1@...>
To: <ultralightdx@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:08 AM
Subject: [ultralightdx] Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL


Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8" rod !

Cheers .......... Graham.


Re: ULR-NDB log from France - Day #3 = beacon #100

Gary DeBock
 

Wow Patrick,

102 NDB's and 14 DXCC Countries is a pretty good result for 3 days of
Ultralight DXing!

You certainly seem to be having a lot of fun using your new radio, and
welcome to the 100 Ultralight NDB Stations Heard Group (Steve, Kevin,
Rob, Nick and me). We salute your great success, and wish you the best
of continued luck in Ultralight NDB-chasing!

73, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA)

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick <aunumero73@...>
To: ultralightdx <ultralightdx@...>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2011 12:52 am
Subject: [ultralightdx] ULR-NDB log from France - Day #3 = beacon #100

 
Hi all,

No static yesterday evening, but only fair conditions... no real DX,
nor rare NDBs.
I nevertheless looked for scandinavian beacons, in vain. Anyway, even
using 'Top-Class' receivers with large loops and narrow filters,
Norway Sweden and Finland are tough catches from my area. Hence one
can consider these countries are real DX for me using an ULR.
Still nothing from Romania nor Slovakia neither. Maybe tonight, or
tomorrow or... later ! This is the beauty od NDB DX'ing, one can never
know what will be heard within 5 minutes. It's amazing how fast
propagation can change.

Well, I don't have to complain, 19 NEW ONES were heard, including 1
NEW DXCC (Corsica Island, TK prefix).
Here is the log (all new ones) :

417.0 16/03/2011 1850 VIC I Vicenza
415.0 16/03/2011 1851 TOE F Toulouse / Blagnac
382.0 16/03/2011 1904 SBG AUT Salzburg
382.0 16/03/2011 1905 GAZ I Gazoldo
386.0 16/03/2011 1909 LIN I Milano / Linate
369.0 16/03/2011 1914 CM F Avignon / Caumont
433.0 16/03/2011 1915 CRE HRV Cres

330.0 16/03/2011 2205 MB F Montbeliard / Courcelles
339.0 16/03/2011 2210 FG F Montpellier / Mediterrannee
341.0 16/03/2011 2212 IS F/TK Ajaccio / Campo del Oro (NEW DXCC)
338.0 16/03/2011 2217 NC F Nice / Cote d'Azur
318.0 16/03/2011 2224 LE LUX Luxembourg
346.0 16/03/2011 2232 WLU LUX Luxembourg
345.5 16/03/2011 2233 CF CZE Caslav
350.0 16/03/2011 2235 BSC F Brive / Souillac
353.0 16/03/2011 2337 BN F Basle / Mulhouse
344.0 16/03/2011 2250 MN E Minorca
426.0 16/03/2011 2312 GBG AUT Gleichenberg for Graz
424.0 16/03/2011 2325 LOE F Limoges / Bellegarde
431.0 16/03/2011 2330 KBA D Karlsruhe / Baden-Baden

TOTAL : 102 NDBs - 14 DXCC

Regards,
Patrick, south-east France


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

graham.maynard1
 

Hi Raph.

The rod I used is linked in my writing
All I know about it is A2/ NiZn, and it works well at MW.

http://www.rapidonline.com/1/1/4790-ferrite-rod.html

Cheers ....... Graham.

--- In ultralightdx@..., "Pollock,Raphael E" <rpollock@...> wrote:

Hi Graham!

Which ferrite rods did you order from Cosmo, and what was the unit price? I could not tell which would be comparable to a NiZn rod with permiability of 125 mu (e.g., optimizable for MW reception). I wonder if Cosmo will ship to the States?

Thanks !

Raph Pollock

________________________________
From: ultralightdx@... [ultralightdx@...] On Behalf Of Graham [graham.maynard1@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:08 AM
To: ultralightdx@...
Subject: [ultralightdx] Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL



Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8" rod !

I was tidying out my greenhouse yesterday when I realised that flower-pot saucers would make brilliant FS Loop formers. They have edge lips capable of aligning and holding rod ends in place, and come in a whole variety of diameters.

Maybe what is not apparent from looking at the FS Loop on its own - though it has always been stated right at the beginning of my written text as uploaded in the FS Loop file - is that the FS Loop was merely a bi-product proof of ferrite sleeve inductor quality.

I was optimising the ferrite sleeve inductor for another (Tesla based)purpose, NOT as a receiving loop, and this is why Chris Trask's comments here and via e-mail directly to me were not only so offensive to anyone who holds dear to Truth, but so totally off target when he accused me of copying Polydoroff's prior work, of which I knew nothing about!

My text IS heavy reading, and this is because it deliberately relates to 'hands-on' findings which current theory cannot explain. It also never ceases to amaze me how people contact me because they think I do not understand 'their' theory, but which I avoid because it *closes down essential thought processes*, and starts futile arguments and bad (often aggresively egocentric) feelings, which are an exact opposite of the free sharing we all need for progress and the sharing I witness in this group.

I have thus added two dated paragraphs for 14th and 16th March to the end of my writing, and invite memebers to read these.
Right at the end of the text is a 14th March dated postscript.

Also in final notes No 9, is a 16th March addition related to the real reason for my sleeve investigations, and my need to understand what happens within the primary electron orbit (magnetic) domains of ferrite. I feel it very important that everyone reads this 'final note' because really it is only a part of the beginning of something much more important, and provides a link to more recent like minded work I did not now existed and thus was unaware of whilst writing.

http://www.gmweb2.net/The%20FS%20Loop.htm

Cheers .......... Graham.


--- In ultralightdx@...<mailto:ultralightdx%40yahoogroups.com>, "Steve Ratzlaff" <steveratz@> wrote:

I received the shipment of ferrite today and made an LF FSL with them and
tested it. It is quite a bit inferior to other FSLs I've built--I really
can't recommend it, unfortunately. It might work OK for a MW FSL but I
haven't built any MW FSLs yet and don't have anything to compare one to.
If you're still interested, a major US distributor, www.digikey.com, carries
this ferrite that looked promising, classed as small ferrite used for EMI
reduction on ribbon cable. The specific Digi Key part number is P11388--just
enter that in the search engine on their home page and it will take you to
the item. Each piece is around 35 cents in quantity of 50 or more up to 100
pieces where it's 30.5 cents each. The ferrite is about 1.3" long x 0.39"
wide x about 0.25" thick. To use it as a ferrite "bar", you would butt the
0.39" sections together around the form, and wind the coil on the 1.3"
section.
I used a standard 4" sytrene coupler as a form, which is obtainable in the
plumbing section of stores like Home Depot. It has an outer diameter of
4.5". 37 bars fit around it almost perfectly, with just a small space left
over. Two wraps of 1/8" foam were used to give a 1/4" spacing of the coil
from the ferrite. Previous tests have shown that 1/4" to 3/8" spacing of
coil from ferrite is needed otherwise FSL output drops.
I would a 60-turn closewound coil using 40/44 Litz over the full 1.3"
ferrite length, this gave 1118 microhenries. With the recommended dual 338
pF polyvaricon tuning capacitor, this would tune to about 183 kHz at the
lowest frequency, which would cover the full NDB band but not all of the
LWBC band.
I have a FSL test setup I've developed very recently where I can measure the
output of a FSL and compare one FSL to another. Of the several FSLs I've
built so far, the original 40-rod one gives the highest output--that's also
the one I've been using to do ULR NDB DXing. I firmly believe that the FSL
with the highest output is also the most sensitive, and thus the most
desirable.
I will show what the 40-rod ferrite FSL measured on the FSL test setup and
what the new EMI ribbon cable ferrite FSL gave, then discuss what the
numbers mean.

40-rod FSL
450 kHz -74 dBm
350 kHz -74 dBm
250 kHz -74 dBm

EMI FSL
450 kHz -76 dBm
350 kHz -78 dBm
250 kHz -81 dBm

Unless you have worked in electronics it's unlikely you have any idea what
the numbers after the frequency mean. "dBm" is an abbreviation for "decibels
referred to one milliwatt, measured in a 50 ohm system". More positive
numbers (toward zero) indicate a higher output from the FSL (in this case).
Thus -74 is a higher output than -76 or -81. Decibels are a logarithmic type
notation--the greater the difference the greater the change in power, or in
terms of a radio signal, a -3 decibel (dB) difference means the signal is
half as strong compared to a signal at 0 dB. Each 3 dB halves that signal
power again. A one decibel change is the smallest change that you can hear
with your ears, if comparing sound levels. For a radio signal, when it's
converted to sound in the radio, that still applies, so the RF signal
difference of 1 dB is the smallest change in audio level you would notice if
you listened very carefully. Thus, the 40-rod FSL and the EMI FSL are about
equal at the high end, 450 kHz, but then the gap steadily widens as the
frequency is lowered. You would definitely be missing the weaker signals
down at 250 kHz, compared to the 40-rod FSL at 250 kHz.
If the differences between the two antennas were only several dB then I
would still recommend the EMI ferrite, but not with the large differences
noted as frequency decreases.
As mentioned before, perhaps this ferrite is suitable for MW use in a FSL,
but I don't know.
So it appears this fairly inexpensive ferrite is not suitable for use for an
LF FSL, unfortunately.
On eBay, searching "ferrite rods" still turns up some Russian sellers with
ferrite that has been tested and found to work very well in FSL, both
ferrite rods and ferrite bars. If you don't mind paying considerably more,
the US distributor Amidon also sells ferrite rods. The -33 type would be the
ones to choose to make LF FSL; the -61 type to make MW FSLs, though either
type would work for either LF or MW, though -61 might not have enough space
to wind a coil with enough inductance to work at LF. Amidon's URL for
ferrite rods is https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6
Gary DeBock uses Amidon rods for both his MW and LF ULR antennas he builds.
73,
Steve


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

Pollock,Raphael E <rpollock@...>
 

Hi Graham!
 
Which ferrite rods did you order from Cosmo, and what was the unit price? I could not tell which would be comparable to a NiZn rod with permiability of 125 mu (e.g., optimizable for MW reception). I wonder if Cosmo will ship to the States?
 
Thanks !
 
Raph Pollock
 


From: ultralightdx@... [ultralightdx@...] On Behalf Of Graham [graham.maynard1@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:08 AM
To: ultralightdx@...
Subject: [ultralightdx] Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

 

Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8" rod !

I was tidying out my greenhouse yesterday when I realised that flower-pot saucers would make brilliant FS Loop formers. They have edge lips capable of aligning and holding rod ends in place, and come in a whole variety of diameters.

Maybe what is not apparent from looking at the FS Loop on its own - though it has always been stated right at the beginning of my written text as uploaded in the FS Loop file - is that the FS Loop was merely a bi-product proof of ferrite sleeve inductor quality.

I was optimising the ferrite sleeve inductor for another (Tesla based)purpose, NOT as a receiving loop, and this is why Chris Trask's comments here and via e-mail directly to me were not only so offensive to anyone who holds dear to Truth, but so totally off target when he accused me of copying Polydoroff's prior work, of which I knew nothing about!

My text IS heavy reading, and this is because it deliberately relates to 'hands-on' findings which current theory cannot explain. It also never ceases to amaze me how people contact me because they think I do not understand 'their' theory, but which I avoid because it *closes down essential thought processes*, and starts futile arguments and bad (often aggresively egocentric) feelings, which are an exact opposite of the free sharing we all need for progress and the sharing I witness in this group.

I have thus added two dated paragraphs for 14th and 16th March to the end of my writing, and invite memebers to read these.
Right at the end of the text is a 14th March dated postscript.

Also in final notes No 9, is a 16th March addition related to the real reason for my sleeve investigations, and my need to understand what happens within the primary electron orbit (magnetic) domains of ferrite. I feel it very important that everyone reads this 'final note' because really it is only a part of the beginning of something much more important, and provides a link to more recent like minded work I did not now existed and thus was unaware of whilst writing.

http://www.gmweb2.net/The%20FS%20Loop.htm

Cheers .......... Graham.


--- In ultralightdx@..., "Steve Ratzlaff" wrote:
>
> I received the shipment of ferrite today and made an LF FSL with them and
> tested it. It is quite a bit inferior to other FSLs I've built--I really
> can't recommend it, unfortunately. It might work OK for a MW FSL but I
> haven't built any MW FSLs yet and don't have anything to compare one to.
> If you're still interested, a major US distributor, www.digikey.com, carries
> this ferrite that looked promising, classed as small ferrite used for EMI
> reduction on ribbon cable. The specific Digi Key part number is P11388--just
> enter that in the search engine on their home page and it will take you to
> the item. Each piece is around 35 cents in quantity of 50 or more up to 100
> pieces where it's 30.5 cents each. The ferrite is about 1.3" long x 0.39"
> wide x about 0.25" thick. To use it as a ferrite "bar", you would butt the
> 0.39" sections together around the form, and wind the coil on the 1.3"
> section.
> I used a standard 4" sytrene coupler as a form, which is obtainable in the
> plumbing section of stores like Home Depot. It has an outer diameter of
> 4.5". 37 bars fit around it almost perfectly, with just a small space left
> over. Two wraps of 1/8" foam were used to give a 1/4" spacing of the coil
> from the ferrite. Previous tests have shown that 1/4" to 3/8" spacing of
> coil from ferrite is needed otherwise FSL output drops.
> I would a 60-turn closewound coil using 40/44 Litz over the full 1.3"
> ferrite length, this gave 1118 microhenries. With the recommended dual 338
> pF polyvaricon tuning capacitor, this would tune to about 183 kHz at the
> lowest frequency, which would cover the full NDB band but not all of the
> LWBC band.
> I have a FSL test setup I've developed very recently where I can measure the
> output of a FSL and compare one FSL to another. Of the several FSLs I've
> built so far, the original 40-rod one gives the highest output--that's also
> the one I've been using to do ULR NDB DXing. I firmly believe that the FSL
> with the highest output is also the most sensitive, and thus the most
> desirable.
> I will show what the 40-rod ferrite FSL measured on the FSL test setup and
> what the new EMI ribbon cable ferrite FSL gave, then discuss what the
> numbers mean.
>
> 40-rod FSL
> 450 kHz -74 dBm
> 350 kHz -74 dBm
> 250 kHz -74 dBm
>
> EMI FSL
> 450 kHz -76 dBm
> 350 kHz -78 dBm
> 250 kHz -81 dBm
>
> Unless you have worked in electronics it's unlikely you have any idea what
> the numbers after the frequency mean. "dBm" is an abbreviation for "decibels
> referred to one milliwatt, measured in a 50 ohm system". More positive
> numbers (toward zero) indicate a higher output from the FSL (in this case).
> Thus -74 is a higher output than -76 or -81. Decibels are a logarithmic type
> notation--the greater the difference the greater the change in power, or in
> terms of a radio signal, a -3 decibel (dB) difference means the signal is
> half as strong compared to a signal at 0 dB. Each 3 dB halves that signal
> power again. A one decibel change is the smallest change that you can hear
> with your ears, if comparing sound levels. For a radio signal, when it's
> converted to sound in the radio, that still applies, so the RF signal
> difference of 1 dB is the smallest change in audio level you would notice if
> you listened very carefully. Thus, the 40-rod FSL and the EMI FSL are about
> equal at the high end, 450 kHz, but then the gap steadily widens as the
> frequency is lowered. You would definitely be missing the weaker signals
> down at 250 kHz, compared to the 40-rod FSL at 250 kHz.
> If the differences between the two antennas were only several dB then I
> would still recommend the EMI ferrite, but not with the large differences
> noted as frequency decreases.
> As mentioned before, perhaps this ferrite is suitable for MW use in a FSL,
> but I don't know.
> So it appears this fairly inexpensive ferrite is not suitable for use for an
> LF FSL, unfortunately.
> On eBay, searching "ferrite rods" still turns up some Russian sellers with
> ferrite that has been tested and found to work very well in FSL, both
> ferrite rods and ferrite bars. If you don't mind paying considerably more,
> the US distributor Amidon also sells ferrite rods. The -33 type would be the
> ones to choose to make LF FSL; the -61 type to make MW FSLs, though either
> type would work for either LF or MW, though -61 might not have enough space
> to wind a coil with enough inductance to work at LF. Amidon's URL for
> ferrite rods is https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6
> Gary DeBock uses Amidon rods for both his MW and LF ULR antennas he builds.
> 73,
> Steve
>


Re: Inexpensive source of ferrite for FSL not recommended for an LF FSL

graham.maynard1
 

Hi Steve,

Just came across this.
http://www.cosmoferrites.com/product/matcomp.html

Kevin e-mailed yesterday, and I forwarded the .pdf file for the ferrite rods I am using, and upon which my writing is based - A2 Nickel/Zinc.

From the above chart I wonder if the initial permeability of my rods is circa 10,000. I feel that using these in a sleeve much better preserves useful permeability when compared to when used as a rod, or, in rod like multiples.

Last year I wrote about modding the antenna in my Tecsun PL-380.
The rods in my sleeves are the same as the rod I used for that !
They make the Tecsun perform almost as well as my Sangean does with its 8" rod !

I was tidying out my greenhouse yesterday when I realised that flower-pot saucers would make brilliant FS Loop formers. They have edge lips capable of aligning and holding rod ends in place, and come in a whole variety of diameters.

Maybe what is not apparent from looking at the FS Loop on its own - though it has always been stated right at the beginning of my written text as uploaded in the FS Loop file - is that the FS Loop was merely a bi-product proof of ferrite sleeve inductor quality.

I was optimising the ferrite sleeve inductor for another (Tesla based)purpose, NOT as a receiving loop, and this is why Chris Trask's comments here and via e-mail directly to me were not only so offensive to anyone who holds dear to Truth, but so totally off target when he accused me of copying Polydoroff's prior work, of which I knew nothing about!

My text IS heavy reading, and this is because it deliberately relates to 'hands-on' findings which current theory cannot explain. It also never ceases to amaze me how people contact me because they think I do not understand 'their' theory, but which I avoid because it *closes down essential thought processes*, and starts futile arguments and bad (often aggresively egocentric) feelings, which are an exact opposite of the free sharing we all need for progress and the sharing I witness in this group.

I have thus added two dated paragraphs for 14th and 16th March to the end of my writing, and invite memebers to read these.
Right at the end of the text is a 14th March dated postscript.

Also in final notes No 9, is a 16th March addition related to the real reason for my sleeve investigations, and my need to understand what happens within the primary electron orbit (magnetic) domains of ferrite. I feel it very important that everyone reads this 'final note' because really it is only a part of the beginning of something much more important, and provides a link to more recent like minded work I did not now existed and thus was unaware of whilst writing.

http://www.gmweb2.net/The%20FS%20Loop.htm

Cheers .......... Graham.

--- In ultralightdx@..., "Steve Ratzlaff" <steveratz@...> wrote:

I received the shipment of ferrite today and made an LF FSL with them and
tested it. It is quite a bit inferior to other FSLs I've built--I really
can't recommend it, unfortunately. It might work OK for a MW FSL but I
haven't built any MW FSLs yet and don't have anything to compare one to.
If you're still interested, a major US distributor, www.digikey.com, carries
this ferrite that looked promising, classed as small ferrite used for EMI
reduction on ribbon cable. The specific Digi Key part number is P11388--just
enter that in the search engine on their home page and it will take you to
the item. Each piece is around 35 cents in quantity of 50 or more up to 100
pieces where it's 30.5 cents each. The ferrite is about 1.3" long x 0.39"
wide x about 0.25" thick. To use it as a ferrite "bar", you would butt the
0.39" sections together around the form, and wind the coil on the 1.3"
section.
I used a standard 4" sytrene coupler as a form, which is obtainable in the
plumbing section of stores like Home Depot. It has an outer diameter of
4.5". 37 bars fit around it almost perfectly, with just a small space left
over. Two wraps of 1/8" foam were used to give a 1/4" spacing of the coil
from the ferrite. Previous tests have shown that 1/4" to 3/8" spacing of
coil from ferrite is needed otherwise FSL output drops.
I would a 60-turn closewound coil using 40/44 Litz over the full 1.3"
ferrite length, this gave 1118 microhenries. With the recommended dual 338
pF polyvaricon tuning capacitor, this would tune to about 183 kHz at the
lowest frequency, which would cover the full NDB band but not all of the
LWBC band.
I have a FSL test setup I've developed very recently where I can measure the
output of a FSL and compare one FSL to another. Of the several FSLs I've
built so far, the original 40-rod one gives the highest output--that's also
the one I've been using to do ULR NDB DXing. I firmly believe that the FSL
with the highest output is also the most sensitive, and thus the most
desirable.
I will show what the 40-rod ferrite FSL measured on the FSL test setup and
what the new EMI ribbon cable ferrite FSL gave, then discuss what the
numbers mean.

40-rod FSL
450 kHz -74 dBm
350 kHz -74 dBm
250 kHz -74 dBm

EMI FSL
450 kHz -76 dBm
350 kHz -78 dBm
250 kHz -81 dBm

Unless you have worked in electronics it's unlikely you have any idea what
the numbers after the frequency mean. "dBm" is an abbreviation for "decibels
referred to one milliwatt, measured in a 50 ohm system". More positive
numbers (toward zero) indicate a higher output from the FSL (in this case).
Thus -74 is a higher output than -76 or -81. Decibels are a logarithmic type
notation--the greater the difference the greater the change in power, or in
terms of a radio signal, a -3 decibel (dB) difference means the signal is
half as strong compared to a signal at 0 dB. Each 3 dB halves that signal
power again. A one decibel change is the smallest change that you can hear
with your ears, if comparing sound levels. For a radio signal, when it's
converted to sound in the radio, that still applies, so the RF signal
difference of 1 dB is the smallest change in audio level you would notice if
you listened very carefully. Thus, the 40-rod FSL and the EMI FSL are about
equal at the high end, 450 kHz, but then the gap steadily widens as the
frequency is lowered. You would definitely be missing the weaker signals
down at 250 kHz, compared to the 40-rod FSL at 250 kHz.
If the differences between the two antennas were only several dB then I
would still recommend the EMI ferrite, but not with the large differences
noted as frequency decreases.
As mentioned before, perhaps this ferrite is suitable for MW use in a FSL,
but I don't know.
So it appears this fairly inexpensive ferrite is not suitable for use for an
LF FSL, unfortunately.
On eBay, searching "ferrite rods" still turns up some Russian sellers with
ferrite that has been tested and found to work very well in FSL, both
ferrite rods and ferrite bars. If you don't mind paying considerably more,
the US distributor Amidon also sells ferrite rods. The -33 type would be the
ones to choose to make LF FSL; the -61 type to make MW FSLs, though either
type would work for either LF or MW, though -61 might not have enough space
to wind a coil with enough inductance to work at LF. Amidon's URL for
ferrite rods is https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6
Gary DeBock uses Amidon rods for both his MW and LF ULR antennas he builds.
73,
Steve


video of Eton G8 being used barefoot for FM tropo

Peter 1956
 

Hi all,

I uploaded another video of my Eton G8 being used barefoot for FMDX under mild tropo conditons, here in Blackpool, England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alvY5aU8Zj0

www.youtube.com/user/pe1etr


ULR-NDB log from France - Day #3 = beacon #100

Patrick <aunumero73@...>
 

Hi all,

No static yesterday evening, but only fair conditions... no real DX,
nor rare NDBs.
I nevertheless looked for scandinavian beacons, in vain. Anyway, even
using 'Top-Class' receivers with large loops and narrow filters,
Norway Sweden and Finland are tough catches from my area. Hence one
can consider these countries are real DX for me using an ULR.
Still nothing from Romania nor Slovakia neither. Maybe tonight, or
tomorrow or... later ! This is the beauty od NDB DX'ing, one can never
know what will be heard within 5 minutes. It's amazing how fast
propagation can change.

Well, I don't have to complain, 19 NEW ONES were heard, including 1
NEW DXCC (Corsica Island, TK prefix).
Here is the log (all new ones) :

417.0 16/03/2011 1850 VIC I Vicenza
415.0 16/03/2011 1851 TOE F Toulouse / Blagnac
382.0 16/03/2011 1904 SBG AUT Salzburg
382.0 16/03/2011 1905 GAZ I Gazoldo
386.0 16/03/2011 1909 LIN I Milano / Linate
369.0 16/03/2011 1914 CM F Avignon / Caumont
433.0 16/03/2011 1915 CRE HRV Cres

330.0 16/03/2011 2205 MB F Montbeliard / Courcelles
339.0 16/03/2011 2210 FG F Montpellier / Mediterrannee
341.0 16/03/2011 2212 IS F/TK Ajaccio / Campo del Oro (NEW DXCC)
338.0 16/03/2011 2217 NC F Nice / Cote d'Azur
318.0 16/03/2011 2224 LE LUX Luxembourg
346.0 16/03/2011 2232 WLU LUX Luxembourg
345.5 16/03/2011 2233 CF CZE Caslav
350.0 16/03/2011 2235 BSC F Brive / Souillac
353.0 16/03/2011 2337 BN F Basle / Mulhouse
344.0 16/03/2011 2250 MN E Minorca
426.0 16/03/2011 2312 GBG AUT Gleichenberg for Graz
424.0 16/03/2011 2325 LOE F Limoges / Bellegarde
431.0 16/03/2011 2330 KBA D Karlsruhe / Baden-Baden

TOTAL : 102 NDBs - 14 DXCC

Regards,
Patrick, south-east France


NE Oregon ULR NDB DX, Wednesday night

Steve Ratzlaff <steveratz@...>
 

Not great LF conditions, but did add two more. Trying a Kevin's Tecsun PL-210, much wider filter but not as much DSP junk heard, I think I like it.
270 logged.
Steve
NE Oregon
Tecsun PL-210, 40-rod FSL

410 6Z SK CAN 835 MI
422 EA NE 1011 MI


Re: One new Station last nite

ferrite61 <dxrx@...>
 

Oops, forgot the radio used was the PL-200. And that makes 25 X-Band stations.

Paul S. in CT

--- In ultralightdx@..., "ferrite61" <dxrx@...> wrote:

Got busy today, so heres last nites happy recap.

The West opened up a lot, and I logged WQLR Kalamazoo, MI as several station mentions on 1660 kHz. WWRU and WBCN could only partially null, their signals here are quite strong. Power is 1kW distance is 1051km.

2 Prospects also caught, definate Ranchero/Mexican-style on 1630 in a WNW direction, and ESPN heard on 1660 also WNW.

Paul S. in CT


Re: Ferrite Sleeve Antenna Permeability

ferrite61 <dxrx@...>
 

Yes, solid wire is much worse Q-wise than Litz. However, if you look at that best inductor, Ben used #31 solid wire of the same turns and coil length. The spacing is nearly 2 parts space to 1 part wire. But in general proper-spacing or more is better. Better to err on the side of empty space at least.

The un-mentioned part of this experiment...get a very good air-variable cap! If both cap and coil are Q = 1000, then the circuit Q is 500.

Paul S. in CT

--- In ultralightdx@..., Gerald Wolczanski <jerrywolczanski@...> wrote:

I actually printed Ben's paper and chugged through it last night. I was
stunned to find how how bad "ordinary" (solid) wire was in these
applications, even when space wound to mitigate the proximity effect.

Your clarification is appreciated!

Jerry W
KI4IO
Warrenton, VA


On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 01:22 +0000, ferrite61 wrote:
I would like to respond here and clarify some points made by Ben in a more direct manner. The page referenced is an excellent page. Perhaps some should skip past some of the more technical parts, and look at the data published, and go back later when ready to tackle the equivilent descriptions of the inductor. What Ben did was in two parts; the first was to establish the Litz wire as best suitable for the application by trying different bundles of #46 Litz. Smaller and larger bundles were compared in making 250uH ferrite inductors. What he found was that at larger bundles, the length of the coil winding became too great, and small bundles did not occupy enough of the ferrite rod length. What did the best was one particular bundle that had 125 strands, that when wound upon the rod occupied about 1/3 of the ferrite rod length.

Part two involved using that "best" configuration directly on the rod, and then placing insulators between the rod, and the winding. Note the Q values encountered (Table 2)in the AM-BCB, especially those at the low (520kHz) and high (1710 kHz). There is a trade-off here, and one's needs might favor one set of results over another, thus, "your methods may vary". Also of note is the "Air-Core Inductance" in table 1. As the spacing between core and coil increases, the "Air Core" inductance increases. BUT NOTE the Ferrite Inductor does not change inductance much at all.

In brief, Ben has demonstrated a reduction of the Electric field (in the wire) that causes losses in the inductor by spacing the coil away from the ferrite rod by using an insulator: plastics, or air. When first written this was a large leap of understanding of ferrite inductors for most of us "ordinary" folks that wanted a High-Q but reletively small package.

Now lets look at the real-world of "what you may have seen". Some of the older pocket transistor radios used to wrap the coil on a paper or cardboard sleeve, and place that assembly on the powdered iron/ferrite strip/rod. This effect that Ben wites and exemplifies is what was to be achieved. Ben's choice of Polypropylene, and Polyehtylene plastics are novel, and quite good for finding a common material "around the house". I also would add that "heat-shrink tubing" is made of the same family of plastic as these other two, and can also work quite well.

So I am quite sure that Ben's theories and experimentaion leads one to believe that a shorter coil length was better than a longer one: keeping the perspective that such coil winding occupies about 1/3 of the ferrite rod length. Thus the aspect of one part of the Ferrite Sleeve Core Inductor has been established: the insulation of ferrite core and wire-wrapping.

Paul S. in CT


--- In ultralightdx@..., Gerald Wolczanski <jerrywolczanski@> wrote:

Henry, I like your "rules". They're easier to understand than:
http://www.bentongue.com/xtalset/29MxQFL/29MxQFL.html

Jerry W



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


19781 - 19800 of 34094