[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IRCA] 3.7 Inch "Baby FSL" Receives S9+ TP-DX

--- Begin Message --- 
That definitely sounds to me like a moderately significant improvement in signal, Gary, considering it was apparently blank without the nano-FSL or whatever you want to call it. :) Â(Although on my S-rating system based on my perceptions of RST, I'd probably rate that signal as an "S4" - my "S9" is usually signals that show 88+ dBÂ on the Tecsuns without any external antenna boost, and anything over S9 is 95+ dBÂ.)
I wonder if there's a chance we may someday have a small and inexpensive enough FSL so that you could have it and the Sangean DT-400W or CC Pocket both contained in a $100 budget and a package the size of the Skywave or PL-380? Â(I'm thinking the radio would be mounted inside the FSL but with the buttons/display somehow still accessible, and instead of being round it'd be more rectangular (or oval), but would that not work?)
Also what about an FSL that, instead of being fairly wide relative to its diameter, is shaped more like the Select-A-Tenna (or oval) but smaller?
Also I was reading other comments on Yahoo and wondering ...
What's the difference in the various versions of the CC Skywave?
What would happen if you used a 330/46 connection to the radio, but made the main coil of the FSL with 1162/46? Â(I'm guessing the tedious part would be individually soldering each strand of one type to the other, or would a single bulk-solder work?)
How does the direct-connected FSL compare with the built-in antenna on adjacent and off-channel RSSI, blocking, assuming you're using signals of comparable strength? Â(Meaning a signal that indicates 89 dBÂ on the FSL, and another that indicates 89 dBÂ on the stock loopstick.) ÂDoes the FSL have higher Q, and not block stations as much as the stock stick?
Also, Skywave vs Traveler 3 - which do you think I may potentially be happier with on AM and FM for the price? ÂFry's has the Skywave here but they want $70 for it and I think that's too much for that model. ÂI had one briefly but the display is terrible outdoors in bright light, also I had some other issues with it too. Â(Some of my complaints with the PL-380 were improved, though.)
73, Stephen 

    On Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:43 AM, "d1028gary@xxxxxxxxxxx" <d1028gary@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 

 Hello All, 
 
The new-design 3.7" FSL is one of several experimental models being tested in an effort to design low cost, high performing models for the MW-DXing community. The 3.7 inch FSL is of a very tiny size (a photo is posted at https://app.box.com/s/e8pv0rh2ydoeyu6rjqewjc8yq3dsd2kr Â), but it uses the highest sensitivity Litz wire available on the commercial market (1162/46). This is the same high-sensitivity Litz wire used in the monster FSL models on Oregon cliff DXpeditions. The 3.7" Baby FSL is designed to be constructed for under $100 in parts, but it packs a veryÂpowerful performance punch in its tiny size. 
 
After completion of the first test model this morningÂthe antennaÂwas tested out in the reception of 1566-HLAZ at 1507, and received this Japanese service signal at an S9+ level on the CC Skywave (as shown in the photo linked above). Without the FSL antenna boost theÂUltralight radio had no reception of HLAZ at all. 
 
 https://app.box.com/s/8e2c7wuiw8tldq3ov9f3etqrw0jdzjxw 
 
73 and Good DX, 
Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA) 
7.5" loopstick CC Skywave Ultralight + 
3.7 inch "Baby FSL" 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx