Return-Path: Received: (qmail 900 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2000 20:58:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by bells.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 8 Jan 2000 20:58:10 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1272pJ-00020v-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2000 20:51:09 +0000 Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.15]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1272pH-00020o-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2000 20:51:07 +0000 Received: from [202.27.181.30] by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000108205036.OXYX3352759.mta4-rme@[202.27.181.30]> for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:50:36 +1300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-ID: <3877A137.5F0D@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 09:42:31 +1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 From: "vernall" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: AMRAD Antenna ? References: <29188.200001071140@gemini> <3875F52A.3AF2D67@bellatlantic.net> <00dc01bf594c$7f1a9ba0$0600a8c0@main> <3876554B.72D98BF3@bellatlantic.net> <3877AF3D.47A84B20@netscapeonline.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi all, The "dipole" with outer ends each grounded is used by some ZL stations for LF receiving. It has been called a ground loop, after the name given to it by Andrew ZL2BBJ in a local article. The LF ground path goes "underground" as skin depth is many metres at LF in typical soil, so the loop area is significantly more than the visible area above ground. The ground path (actually multiple paths) between "dipole" ends is lossy compared to copper wire, so the circulating current is generally lower than if ground wires were used, however the aperture is greater if no ground conductors are used, and aperture is what is good for receiving (the noise figure is basically set by signal to external QRN ratio). In use for transmitting, the ground loop can be expected to be fairly lossy compared to higher Q antennas (DX QSOs need absolute radiated power). Bob ZL2CA g3kev wrote: > > Hello All. > Your comment about your antenna maybe operating like a LOOP is probably correct. > I would suggest it is performing like a grounded quad. Similar systems used on 160 > and 80 metres where one cannot get a full size quad up. > At 1600 ft long and 50 ft high, think that is what you said, its natural resonant > frequency used as a grounded quad would be 296 khz. I expect there is some sort of > loading to resonate on 137 khz. > It would be interesting to check whether it radiates better as a loop or a long wire > with the grounded far end disconnected. Judging by experiments in the past using > loops v verticlals, I think the vertical/long wire approach would be better for low > angle. > I have tried a variety of loops in the past for 160 metres ie 40 m loop resonated on > 160 and although it was quieter than my full size quarter wave on 160, it was not as > sensitive and did not pull in the long haul low angle dx, in fact there were signals > that I could not hear that I was able to copy solid on the vertical, although at > times probably noiser. Small loops for short/medium distances of several hundred > miles are acceptable but for low angle long haul poor on mf/hf. > A full size loop ie quad or delta etc resonant at the operating frequency and > preferably at least a quarter wave above ground is a totally different story. > In the UK stations using loops have poor signals compared to those using verticals, > even low verticals heights with top loading. A couple of stations that have been > using loops have changed over to verticals and although not very high made a hugh > difference to their signals received at my qth. > The so called long wire, just a few feet above ground and fed with a drop wire is > really a top loaded vertical or inv L. > The above comments are a result of experiments and observations, especially on 137 > khz and 1800 khz bands > 73 de Mal/G3KEV > Andre' Kesteloot wrote: > > > Wooops, > > I guess I did not express myself quite clearly enough. > > The far end of the wire terminates in a field , (and specifically near a pond) > > visited by many cows. In order to avoid any possible unpleasantness (wire > > falling on the ground if broken by the wind, etc.), we decided to ground that > > end. > > It may well be that the whole thing operates as a loop of sorts, as there is a > > non-zero resistance between the two grounds (the one at the Tx site, and the one > > at the pond end) > > 73 > > Andre' > > > > Dave wrote: > > > > > Surely the Voltage gradient is just the same but the other way round? High > > > current point at the earthed end and high Voltage point at the TX site as it > > > is about a quarter wave.... > > > The "earthed at the far end" idea has been used with topband antennas for > > > years in order to get the current into the vertical drop. > > > > > > 73 Dave G3YXM.