Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52505 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2004 00:30:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 22 Jul 2004 00:30:43 -0000 Received: from [192.168.67.2] (helo=ptb-mxcore02.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnRUJ-0005TB-AH for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:31:07 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1BnRTt-000CcY-GS for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:30:41 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BnRTB-0004E0-Aa for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:29:57 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BnRTA-0004Dr-QZ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:29:56 +0100 Received: from mail.genesiswireless.com ([63.171.43.8] helo=ms.genesis-technology.com) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BnRT6-0008SX-2T for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:29:56 +0100 Received: from genesiswireless.us (rev-65.165.20.192.genesiswireless.us [65.165.20.192]) by ms.genesis-technology.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i6M0TZjt028100 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:29:36 -0500 Message-ID: <40FF0AF9.5060400@genesiswireless.us> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:31:53 -0500 From: WE0H Mike User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <002f01c46df8$a3fcfec0$72cdfc3e@l8p8y6> <005901c46e86$99e744c0$3401a8c0@JKA> <000101c46ec1$5e3e4820$69d0fc3e@l8p8y6> In-Reply-To: <000101c46ec1$5e3e4820$69d0fc3e@l8p8y6> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY=0.544 Subject: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Well Mr Mal,

We US of A operators don't have any LF Amateur Radio bands so we can't drive our loops with the same level of power you run. I don't know why Bill Ashlock hasn't jumped in here, but in my opinion, the only fair way to compare the TX loop to your vertical would be to fly Bill over to your house and have him install one of his designed and tuned TX loops and drive it with the exact power level and mode of operation as you are using on your vertical. Now you would have a damn good comparison test of the Loop verses Mal's vertical.

Everyone doesn't have the knowledge or resources as the other guy has, so I believe all operators should be treated with respect for what they use and operate. At least they are on the band whether someone hears them or not. They enjoy what they do and I hope you enjoy what you do. We US LF operators respect each other whether we hate the other guy or not. We never post bullshit about others ideas. We don't pick fights on the US LF reflector. We don't piss and moan about the other guys equipment, antennas or their pissy ass attitude, let alone what he or she thinks would be a good station. It is all called respect for another human being and the understanding that they too have ideas, just like you do.

I invite you to come to my house and build whatever wire vertical you can on my lot. I have the Ashlock TX loop in the air already. We can operate under my Part-5 license with high power if you like. We'll let the US LF group decide which antenna works best in my backyard. Enjoy your vertical Mal. I hope it continues to work well for many years. I'll enjoy my antennas also. Have a good day.

73's es later dude,
Mike
WE0H
WD2XGI

hamilton mal wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Andrews" <w1tag@charter.net>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals

For those that do not know. Research around Europe has shown that

VERTICALS

are the only antennas suitable for Transmitting on LF. Loops are fine for
Receiving, little or large but the bigger the better. Who has ever heard

of

a LF broadcasting station using loops for TX. <

Mal,

Perhaps because no LF broadcasting stations operate from small garden back
yards with trees and no open space.

I certainly have no quarrel with research done in Europe. Please encourage
those doing it to use this forum to discuss it. Thus far, I have only seen
your discouraging comments versus positive results from U.S.

experimenters.

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.

John Andrews, W1TAG