Looks pretty decent, until the very end. Antenna Factor (AF) is the ratio
of the field strength voltage to the output VOLTAGE, not power, although
you did get the numbers right.

So practically, since the average ham has a receiver with a sensitivity in
the order of a microvolt, then your antenna limits your minimum
discernable signal level to around 65 uV/m. Maybe 100 uV/m to be on the
safe side. That's likely quite adequate for detecting BPL noise, but the
real problem is having the average ham get an anywhere near reasonably
accurate measurement of 100 uV. Your S meter just isn't good enough, so
now you're moving beyond the "average" ham's capability. Accurizing your
receiver into an RF microvoltmeter is a tough task, so maybe the best
route is to use a signal generator as a comparison standard. Old
boatanchor signal generators in the 7 MHz region are reasonably available,
and their attenuators are a lot better than their frequency stability and
portability. g

I applaud your goals, but getting data accurate enough to toss into an
intelligent argument about BPL is a tough task. Good luck.

--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA

In the BPL report at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tec...line/ascom.pdf
I noticed the system noise floor at about 10 dBuV/m (in 9 kHz). For the
tests they used an active bi-conical antenna. (By my calculations 10 dBuV/m
is about 9 uV(2.5 kHz BW) from a 40 m dipole at 7 MHz.) In the previously
mentioned report most of the BPL signals -- even at 1 meter from the
source -- is 60 dBuV/m. It seems your system with the loop will be much
less sensitive at about 100 uV/m (+40 dBuV/m).

Incidentally, when I attempted to save your web page of math, it was saved
as an ".mcd" document. Obviously I was not able to open it with Mathcad,
but will have to type it in by hand.

Might be interesting to replicate your results with NEC2.

Frank