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)
Message-ID: <000901c64aab$8824e460$1ce4fc3e@your4105e587b6>
From: "g3kev" <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
To: "rsgb" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:43:30 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: LOOPS V VERTICALS
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C64AAB.16DBBB80"
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C64AAB.16DBBB80
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi All

Considering RX only some around EU are getting good results with DX 
reception using the small mini vertical and others seemingly using small 
loops.
Of the two I wonder which is better. I expect to be meaningful one would 
need both at the same QTH otherwise environmential variations could have an 
effect and give different resul,ts.
My experience with larger antennas tends to favour the vertical for DX 
reception.

The loop in use here is an 80metre system favouring E/W and works well up to 
about say 1500 miles in the optimum direction (e/w) and also works for the 
DX but well down on the vertical.
The loop is parallel resonated for 136 khz. and the top horizontal is at 70 
ft high.

The vertical consists of 3 x inv L's each one 100 ft vertical and over 400 
ft horizontal. The vertical drop wires taper from the top to the bottom and 
connect to the loading coil abt 400 uH and matched to 50 ohms coax which 
goes to the TX/RX some 150 ft away.(air wound loading/matching inductors)
No ferrite material in the cct and no problems. This system is very stable 
and seldom changes from day to day, once in a while in a snow storm it might 
wander some hertz then return to normal although provision is made for 
adjustmenty if necessary.

I cannot think of any real improvements here but if I had a small active 
vertical , PA0 design or similar I would try it, I could build one but do 
not have the specified transistors.

In my case I think the angle of arrival of signals is related to the 
reception factor ie vertical is better for the long haul low angle sigs and 
the loop better for the high angle sigs.

Your comments on the smaller verts/loops welcome.

73 de Mal/G3KEV


------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C64AAB.16DBBB80
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>Hi All</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>Considering RX only some around EU are =
getting good=20
results with DX reception using the small mini vertical and others =
seemingly=20
using small loops.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>Of the two I wonder which is better. I =
expect to=20
be&nbsp;meaningful one would need both at the same QTH otherwise =
environmential=20
variations could have an effect and give different =
resul,ts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>My experience with&nbsp;larger antennas =
tends to=20
favour the vertical for DX&nbsp;reception.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>The loop in use here is an 80metre=20
system&nbsp;favouring E/W and works well up to about say 1500 =
miles&nbsp;in the=20
optimum direction (e/w) and also works for the DX but well down on the=20
vertical.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>The loop is parallel resonated for 136 =
khz. and the=20
top horizontal is at 70 ft high.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>The vertical&nbsp;consists of 3 x inv =
L's each one=20
100 ft vertical and over 400 ft horizontal.&nbsp;The vertical drop=20
wires&nbsp;taper from the top to the bottom and connect to the loading =
coil abt=20
400 uH and matched to 50 ohms coax which goes to the TX/RX some 150 ft =
away.(air=20
wound&nbsp;loading/matching inductors)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>No ferrite material&nbsp;in the cct and =
no=20
problems. This system is very stable and seldom changes from day to day, =
once in=20
a&nbsp;while in a snow storm it might wander some =
hertz</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D4>then return to normal although provision is made =
for=20
adjustmenty if necessary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>I cannot think of any real improvements =
here but if=20
I had a small active vertical , PA0 design or similar I would try it, I =
could=20
build one but do not have the specified transistors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>In my case I think the angle of arrival =
of signals=20
is related to the reception factor ie vertical is better for the long =
haul low=20
angle sigs and the&nbsp;loop better for the high angle =
sigs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>Your comments on the smaller =
verts/loops=20
welcome.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4>73 de Mal/G3KEV</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C64AAB.16DBBB80--