Hi Richard,

I feel SO MUCH better now!!!!!!!!

Just read and replied to Reg's latest comments a few minutes ago and
it seems I am on the right track-my major error was not realizing that
my series loop impedance as originally suggested was very much lower
than I thought it to be ...and I've finally realized that it COULD NOT
POSSIBLY be matched to a receiver that had 2 (or 10) ohms input Z.

Now that I've realized my originals series loop antenna had an
impedance in the milliohm region, the other explanations that you gave
made perfect sense.

At least, I feel like I made it to the first level::

I'm a little hesitant to make this suggestion, but let me ask the
question(s) at the risk of taking to large a step forward and
stumbeling::

If you would, just give me a yes or no answer to these questions so I
can make sure I don't have seriously flawed remnants of the old
thinking.....

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

With the current model of parallel loop...

If my receiver was 2K input impedance (whether tuned input or not),
could I connect it to my loop with a piece of 2000 ohm open wire line
and expect the net (or loaded) Q to be around 100 (assuming a 2K
impedance open wire line could be built and that my unloaded antenna Q
was 200 to start with).

Yes or No?

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

With the current model of parallel loop...

If I elected to use a buffer amp with megohms of input impedance,
would I preserve the unloaded Q and end up with a net Q of about 200
because I haven't loaded the loop?

Yes or No?

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

I believe my receiver is microvolt sensitive and that the loop will
deliver a relatively good signal to the receiver even though the loop
isn't terribly efficient. If I build selectivity into the front end of
the receiver, do I really need high Q (200)??

I think the answer is NO.....

Since my receiver is quite sensitive (characterized at uV before I
convert it to VLF), I think I could save a lot of money by sacrificing
some antenna Q and building modest selectivity into the front end.

Or, I could elect to use the antenna as planned (impedance matched,
but no front end tuned circuit) and instead convert the receiver to an
untuned input (allowing the antenna Q to be the sole form of tuning).

Is this reasoning basically correct or seriously flawed?

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


However, one of the fascinating characteristics of this style of
detector is that you can feed each channel to the earpieces of a
stereo headset. "I" for one, "Q" for the other earpiece. This gives
you the chance to use your wet-ware instead of someone's software and
hardware.

The brain does all the necessary fourier analysis automatically and in
real time. The upshot of it is that when listening to a CW signal,
and hearing the field of signals around it, you perceive those signals
in a mind-space.

OK, I am an avid cw operator, often operating as a hired gun at m/m HF
contest efforts. So, I completely understand the concept of having the
brain do the processing. The brain is a very seriously viable filter
that is adaptive with regard to the audio spectrum sent to it by a
conventional receiver.

I haven't tried actual binaural operation, but have heard others talk
about it. The users claim it is a different world from the very first
second of listening to it and are constantly amazed at the effect and
improvement.

I have a friend who isn't quite local...but we chat from time to time
although we don't see each other that often. He has a high frequency
hearing loss in one ear and has a great deal of difficulty with cw. He
built a binaural project from a QST article and was stunned to hear
the results. He was sold ont he idea in short order!

But I never though much about hooking up a stereo headphone to the i/q
audio streams.

The difference is that your binaural perception with its phase
separation capability could be brought to bear to ignore the field of
noise to concentrate on your partner. When you hear the mono
recording, the phase information is lost and your partner's
conversation merges with the background noise.


OK, I am with you with respect to the brain filtering out unwanted
conversations to let you focus on your conversational partners distant
voice. But, I thought traditional binaural receiver meant that the
frequencies higher than a certain point went to one ear and that the
all the frequencies lower than the same frequency went to the other
ear. In this manner the listener has a feeling of 'depth' or
'richness' that isn't present in a mono setup.

This is interesting though.

But, I never thought that the brain could process the I and Q to
provide opposite (unwanted) sideband rejection...which is why I
thought the primary function of the I/Q precessing was about (whether
it be hardware or software based).

Are you suggesting that the brain can also process the I/Q output
streams and provide opposite sideband rejection as well as selective
frequency and adaptive filtering?

I have also
played with bucket-brigade delay lines to create this effect. At one
time Paul McCartney was using it with his music. Aural phase
relationships have a strong psychological information content that is
taken for granted.


I'll investigate this over the Winter season, which is long and hard
here. Thanks for planting a bug in my ear (no pun intended) about
this. I probably would not have thought of it otherwise.

Regards,

T