Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29898 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 05:26:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by bells.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 05:26:26 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 127tfJ-00001b-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:16:21 +0000 Received: from panchito.austria.eu.net ([193.154.160.103]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 127tfI-00001W-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:16:20 +0000 Received: from qsl.net (dialup220.ap01-ried.at.eu.net [193.154.148.220]) by panchito.Austria.EU.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA09118 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:16:08 +0100 (MET) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-ID: <387ABC73.EB1AE1BB@qsl.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:15:31 +0100 From: "Heinz Schnait" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-NECCK (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: Bad experience with loop ant References: <000e01bf5ba5$6bc57f60$60d725c3@194.95.193.10.fen.baynet.de> 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: Hello all, Walter Staubach wrote: > ....After realizing > my loop I found out, that the capacity of the loop itself between the turns > was already 800pF. That generates losses. Do you know that capacity in your > loop? How can one measure the capacitance of the loop itself? Any suggestions? 73 Heinz, OE5EEP