[time-nuts] WWVB antennas

John Forster said: "WWVB is hard to detect w/ a 3-foot diameter HP shielded loop w/ integral preamp & 2 stages of mechanical filters. (HP 117A). The other half of the time it was undetectable. Paul S uses a loop that is much larger." I am near Chicago and I have 2 60 kHz antennas. One is a ferri

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

And I am on the east coast close to John with a 10' square loop 150' from the house and other things not that at 60 Khz thats much. It has more gain then a circular loop with a preamp at the antenna. It kicks the butt over my small loop. Regards Paul WB8TSL On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Robert

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

here are the other 60kHz transmitters: http://www.ka7oei.com/wwvb_antenna.html U.S. based WWVB transmitter. As described, it could also be used for theUK-based 60 kHz MSF MSF signal formerly the Rugby clock**and the Japan

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

I am impressed by Casio engineers who created tiny antenna for my wrist watch. I don't know how, but that Pathfinder able to catch and decode 60 khz wwvb in noisy city environment. And it did even better when i was 500 km north ! :40, Alexander Pummer wrote: here are the other 60kHz transmitt

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

o: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:54 AM >Subject: Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas > > >I am impressed by Casio engineers who created tiny antenna for my wrist watch. >I don't know how, but that Pathfinder

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

ry/invention.  I have read that they are > approximately 20% more efficient than normal antennas. > >  Jim, KG4FXV > > >> >> From: d0ct0r >>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> >>Sent: Saturday,

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

urement" Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas Google 'fractal antenna'. Fractal Antennas are a relatively recent (late 1980's to mid-1990's) discovery/invention. I have read that they are approximately 20%

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

On 2/21/14, 2:21 PM, Robert Roehrig wrote: > John Forster said: > > "WWVB is hard to detect w/ a 3-foot diameter HP shielded loop w/ integral > preamp & 2 stages of mechanical filters. (HP 117A). The other half of the > time it was undetectable. Paul S uses a loop that is much larger." > > I a

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

You are about 1/4 the distance away. Inverse square law. -John === > > > On 2/21/14, 2:21 PM, Robert Roehrig wrote: >> John Forster said: >> >> "WWVB is hard to detect w/ a 3-foot diameter HP shielded loop w/ >> integral >> preamp & 2 stages of mechanical filters. (HP 117A). The oth

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, J. Forster wrote: > You are about 1/4 the distance away. Inverse square law. > If we were in free space I might concur on the inverse square law. We aren't and propagation certainly has an effect on path loss. I posted signal levels coming from my Pixelsat loop

Re: [time-nuts] WWVB antennas

Fractal antennas are nice artworks, but as long as their geometry does not contain elements , which are comparable with the wavelength of the incoming signal they are more or less not much assets, 73 KJ6UHN Alex On 2/22/2014 8:50 AM, Alan Melia wrote: Claims on antenna efficiency at these fre