Return-Path: Received: from mtain-di02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-di02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.64.6]) by air-da08.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDA083-86404d83dcd8358; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:29:44 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-di02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 5922438003CAA; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Q0i8Y-0007Ax-HC for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:27:14 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Q0i8Y-0007Ao-2L for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:27:14 +0000 Received: from mout4.freenet.de ([195.4.92.94]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0i8X-0008IH-ED for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:27:14 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.20] (helo=10.mx.freenet.de) by mout4.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.72 #3) id 1Q0i8W-0006oZ-CP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:27:12 +0100 Received: from blfd-4d083f0e.pool.mediaways.net ([77.8.63.14]:1381 helo=[192.168.0.101]) by 10.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.72 #3) id 1Q0i8W-0003sC-2w for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:27:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4D83DC3E.5020607@freenet.de> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:27:10 +0100 From: wolf_dl4yhf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4D83D475.9090609@telus.net> <4D83D903.7000706@telus.net> In-Reply-To: <4D83D903.7000706@telus.net> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Loop TX antennas at VLF? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-aol-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40064d83dc767a20 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hi Scott, you wrote: >The practicality of a loop would depend on its size and the tuner design. Stable caps would be needed and these caps would be very expensive which resulted in my thoughts drifting to the concept of a gyrator. Essentially an inductor used to simulate a cap with suitable active components... Google 'gyrator'. < Ummm.. active components indeed .. I only know Gyrators in very old narrow-band VLF receiver designs, only low signal handling capabilities. Wouldn't these 'active components' be essentially a power amplifier capable of driving highy reactive loads ? If we had such an output driver, we wouldn't need a tuner... more or less. Or am I missing something ? Cheers, Wolf .