Message-ID: <004601c07577$30ed7400$a0a074d5@w8k3f0>
From: "Dick Rollema" <d.w.rollema@freeler.nl>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <31534946.978517784342.JavaMail.imail@bernie.excite.com>
Subject: LF: Re: Re: loops
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:19:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

To All from PA0SE

John, G4CNN, wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> 1) When you state that the Radiation Resistance of a loop antenna is
> proportional to the square of its Area, you are of course quoting the
> accepted formula, but you will remember that Prof. Mike Underhill
challenged
> this formula in his talk at Windsor. Unfortunately I have not yet managed
to
> find this talk published anywhere.

After Mike's talk I had a discussion with him and told him about
Q-measurements on loops made in The Netherlands. He was very interested and
at his request I have sent  him the publication with the measurement results
(Mike can read Dutch, having worked with Philips at Eindhoven for some
time).  I also asked him for a copy of the table presented at the end of his
talk that gave the startling results of his new theory so I could use it for
a write-up in our VERON magazine Electron. But I neither received
confirmation he had received my mail nor the table ... Could it be  some
flaw has afterwards been detected in the new theory?

73, Dick, PA0SE