Return-Path: Received: (qmail 348 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2002 00:36:38 -0000 Received: from marstons.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.223) by mailstore with SMTP; 14 Nov 2002 00:36:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 25963 invoked by uid 10001); 13 Nov 2002 23:35:54 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by marstons.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 13 Nov 2002 23:35:54 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 18C71v-0007Cf-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:34:43 +0000 Received: from [212.135.6.13] (helo=smarthost3.mail.uk.easynet.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18C71v-0007CW-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:34:43 +0000 Received: from tnt-1-8.easynet.co.uk ([195.40.206.8] helo=erica) by smarthost3.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18C71u-000LoV-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:34:42 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c28b6d$44f37fe0$08ce28c3@erica> From: "g3ldo" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:48:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Loop vs Marconi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OEversion=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Bill A said: > Gee, Mal, if all of us follow this general statement of yours, you will have > few new stations to contact (as you were complaining about only a month > ago). All debates aside, at least the loop allows a way for a number of us > to transmit on LF .......... with sites impossible on which to erect a > vertical. And don't be concerned about the 100w power level, proposed in the > US, over- driving a 50'x50' loop. A 12Ga wire has no problem with the 8.3A > of current at 100W. > > BTW: The number of TX loop using Lowfers will likely outnumber the number of > vertical using Lowfers (the active ones) in the US this winter! It is interesting that Lowfers in the USA have found the transmitting loop superior to the Marconi in a restricted QTH. When we started on 73kHz some years ago G2AJV was the first to put out a reasonably strong signal and he was using a large loop. G4JNT and G3XDV also put out reasonable signals from very restricted sites and later found that a Marconi from the same site radiated a stronger signal for the same transmitter power. As a result it has become part of UK LF collective wisdom that the Marconi is superior to a loop of the same size. The Lowfers have more years experience working under more restrictive conditions than we have. Bill, do you have some comparative data? A description of constructing transmitting loop antenna variable capacitors appeared in Radcom Feb 1994 called 'Experimental magnetic loop Antennas' by C R Reynolds, GW3JTP. The article is reproduced in the book 'Backyard Antennas'. Regards, Peter, G3LDO e-mail Web