Message-ID: <004301c46f53$26dfdaf0$3401a8c0@JKA>
From: "John Andrews" <w1tag@charter.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <002f01c46df8$a3fcfec0$72cdfc3e@l8p8y6> <005901c46e86$99e744c0$3401a8c0@JKA> <000101c46ec1$5e3e4820$69d0fc3e@l8p8y6>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:47:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: Loops v Verticals
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Mal,

> Who in the U.S. has worked the distance on a loop that I have covered on
> normal CW using a vertical
> Scarborought to Russia, you must have read about it. If you need more info
> let me know.

No, thanks. I remember your messages about the event quite well, and you
were certainly well congratulated at the time. I'm not sure where you have
gotten the impression that anyone is claiming that a well constructed
vertical antenna in a clear area is inferior to a loop for transmitting at
LF. The vertical is certainly the best option for people with the resources
to do it right.

In reading your messages over the years, you have consistently discouraged
radio activities in which one could not be the biggest, the best and the
first. My only fear is that fellows new to the craft would take this
seriously, and feel too limited by equipment, money and real estate to even
try participating in LF work.  But perhaps even the greenest of us can
recognize bluster and self-promotion for what it is.

John Andrews, W1TAG