Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78516 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 18:46:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 18:46:32 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnM7D-000973-Ut for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:56 +0100 Received: from [192.168.67.3] (helo=ptb-mxcore03.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnM7D-00096z-Sd for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:55 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1BnM6n-0009BZ-R6 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:29 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BnM6V-0002iY-0u for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:11 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BnM6U-0002iP-MH for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:10 +0100 Received: from ylpvm29-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.60] helo=ylpvm29.prodigy.net) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BnM6R-0007Vk-3U for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:46:10 +0100 Received: from willow.nutstreet.net (adsl-64-216-179-80.dsl.tulsok.swbell.net [64.216.179.80]) by ylpvm29.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6LIk20W029886 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:46:03 -0400 Received: from willow.nutstreet.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by willow.nutstreet.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6LIkNMb005347 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:46:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (eric@localhost) by willow.nutstreet.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i6LIkNin005343 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:46:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:46:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Eric KD5UWL To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: <002f01c46df8$a3fcfec0$72cdfc3e@l8p8y6> Message-ID: References: <002f01c46df8$a3fcfec0$72cdfc3e@l8p8y6> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: Re: LF: Loops v Verticals Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com 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-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, hamilton mal wrote: > 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. > 73 de G3KEV Who asked? Who cares?