X-GM-THRID: 1198296143366328847 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: a3a4824c28950db683c4d7eb4831b0498c36c0ea Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.54.70.14 with SMTP id s14cs22365wra; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.67.19.8 with SMTP id w8mr3567073ugi; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:04:15 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id u1si1783198uge.2006.03.19.08.04.14; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1FL0MH-0005gE-6c for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:02:21 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1FL0ME-0005g5-PP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:02:18 +0000 Received: from smtpout0164.sc1.cp.net ([64.97.136.164] helo=n066.sc1.cp.net) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1FL1x7-0008Fd-Sh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:44:45 +0000 Received: from your4105e587b6 (62.252.205.59) by n066.sc1.cp.net (7.2.069.1) id 440E1F0F0016B919 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c64b6e$33e2b8a0$3bcdfc3e@your4105e587b6> From: "g3kev" To: "rsgb" Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:16:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-1.500,HTML_50_60=0.095,HTML_FONT_BIG=0.232,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=0.365 Subject: LF: LOOPS V VERTICALS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C64B3E.41A1B4D0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,HTML_30_40, HTML_FONT_BIG,HTML_MESSAGE,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6267 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C64B3E.41A1B4D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All Vernal and Steve agree with my observations that a large vertical is a better RX antenna in a quiet environment. My location like theirs is out in the country and quiet and suitable for a vertical. Long haul signals from the USA on my 80m vert loop are well down or non existant at times on the loop. In a quiet environment the small mini vertical could well outperform a small loop. It would be interesting to hear from those using such antennas about their experiences. 73 de Mal/G3KEV ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C64B3E.41A1B4D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All
Vernal and Steve agree with my = observations=20 that a large vertical is a better RX antenna in a quiet = environment.=20 My location like theirs is out in the country and quiet and suitable for = a=20 vertical.
Long haul signals from the USA on my = 80m vert loop=20 are well down or non existant at times on the loop.
In a quiet environment the small mini = vertical=20 could well outperform a small loop. It would be interesting to hear from = those=20 using such antennas about their experiences.
 
73 de Mal/G3KEV
 
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C64B3E.41A1B4D0--