Message-ID: <002501c1b3ca$46625660$654101d5@dave>
From: "Dave Sergeant" <dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk>
To: "rsgb_lf_group" <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <3.0.1.16.20020212094812.2d07f0e6@pb623250.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Re: LF: Loop questions
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:35:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

>From Dave G3YMC

ON7YD wrote:
>The result is that in most cases (and for dimensions that are
>practical for hams) the efficiency of a short vertical will be a lot better
>than from a loop with similar dimensions. Only those who suffer from
>extreme environemental losses might be better off with a loop.

There is always the exception to this rule.  I have recently done extensive tests
with a vertical against my loop (see
http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk/vertical.htm. In my case performance of a
vertical is in most cases inferior to the loop. A transmitting loop is a very viable
antenna for many amateurs, but it must be done properly - no 1m square things with
thin wire.  The thing which has slowed down its use is this sort of negative
reaction.  Someone with more real estate could construct a loop working far better
than the one I have - same policy as with verticals, make it big, make it of thick
wire etc.  I shall probably take down my vertical shortly and restore it to an hf
Butternut, it certainly doesn't work at this QTH and the current level of activity on
the band hardly justifies it.

73s Dave G3YMC
dsergeant@iee.org
dsergeant@btinternet.com
http://www.dsergeant.btinternet.co.uk