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: <001301c64b77$ffba03d0$2201a8c0@pcroelof>
From: "Roelof Bakker" <roelof@ndb.demon.nl>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <000401c64b6e$33e2b8a0$3bcdfc3e@your4105e587b6>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:10:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: LOOPS V VERTICALS
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="Windows-1252";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Hello Mal,

I have been testing a tuneable loop antenna against my mini-whip and did not 
find any difference in receiving weak daytime signals in the 270 - 430 kHz 
range.

At home I have been on and off comparing DX performance of a single winding 
active loop and the mini-whip. This requires absence of local noisem, as at 
my location the loop is much more prone to local noise pick up than the 
mini-whip. When a station could be heard on one antenna, it was audible as 
well on the other. I did not come across a single situation where this did 
not hold.

Just like Jim, I have also used a phasing system with the above mentioned 
active loop and a mini-whip. I could establish a reduction in received band 
noise in the order of 3 dB compared to the mini-whip alone. This is caused 
by the change from omni-directional to a heart shaped antenna pattern and 
hence a lower level of received band noise.

The best results in regard to low noise, was an EWE. I might set it up again 
and test it on some T/A signals. Though A/B comparisons are obvious, I have 
intentionally descarded these with my mini-whip design. It has been fun to 
watch the performance over time. Just stick to it and see what happens in 
the long run.

Best regards,

Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt