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: <001501c6a077$3ecccf40$d80c7ad5@w4o8m9>
From: "James Moritz" <james.moritz@btopenworld.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <NKEMLGOEKANPNJOBFBAFOEKOCNAA.g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:09:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: LF loading coils
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Status: O

Dear Gary, LF group,

...But there is another justification for making a high-Q loading coil, and
that is power dissipation. If you are trying to run 1kW into a small
antenna, it isn't hard to end up with a few hundred watts dissipated in the
loading coil if this has mediocre Q. This would only reduce the radiated
signal by about 1dB or so compared to a perfect, zero-loss loading coil, but
it would certainly make the coil get warm! A big, high Q coil dissipates
less power in the first place, and has more surface area to dissipate the
heat, too.

Cheers, Jim Moritz
73 de M0BMU

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary - G4WGT <g4wgt@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Cc: LW Wave <lowfer@lwca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: LF: RE: Re: LF loading coils


> Hi Alan & Steve,
>
> You made almost identical comments.
>
*****************
>
> So I will give that idea a "MISS"
>
> Thanks to you both for your comments.
>
> 73
>
> Gary - G4WGT.
>
>
>