Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14360 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 08:40:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 08:40:58 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 7118 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 08:40:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 08:40:56 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16rcNC-0006Fo-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:15:42 +0100 Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk ([194.201.52.152]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16rcNB-0006Fj-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:15:41 +0100 Received: from ldsas01-65-116-50.cw-visp.com ([212.137.116.50] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16rae4-0005R9-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:25:01 +0000 Message-ID: <3CA6BCC1.238DA63A@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:37:37 +0100 From: "gii3kev" Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: RE: loops References: 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: "Ashlock,William" wrote: > Mal, > > I believe what is going wrong is that many guys fail to start out with good > reference material and not 'going through the numbers' on paper. Secondly > they don't reach a basic understanding or 'feel' of how a loop performs by > getting the Rac down to an acceptable value consistent with the loop > dimensions and conductor type. They will be putting 99%+ of the power into > that Rac and it is all wasted in heat - so it better be as low as possible! > A low power level must be used for this experimentation because only a tiny > breakdown of a component will totally mess up results/conclusions/opinions. > Then comes the problem of selecting a capacitor that can handle the voltage > and current in the loop. At 1w my loops run up to 1.5A at 150v RMS... no > problem for plain old 500v micas. At 100w the current and voltage is 15A and > 1500v RMS. Getting tough? Darn right! - but doable. At 1000w you are at 47A Hi Bill This is terrific current 47Amps. To generate 1W erp some stations in the UK are running 2Kw or more to their small vertical antennas. With a loop it would be 94 Amps. In ZL to generate their permitted 5W erp from a loop it could be nearly 250 Amps. I think I will stick with my vertical antenna for transmitting and my couple of amps. I am using my loop for receive which is parallel resonated and it works very well, although I use the vertical for both tx/rx normally, but the loop is a good rx back up antenna. With your power limit you can get away with hanging the loop directly on the trees but with 47 - 250 amps I expect you would start a forest fire !! GL De Mal/G3KEV > > and 4700v. For those that are this crazy, the loop conductor will have to > use #6 or multiple runs of smaller size wire and the capacitor will have to > be...... well, something exotic! My gestimation is that at 1000w you will be > exceeding 1w ERP, anyway, so this likely a theoretical design. > > Bill A > > ********************************************************************* > This footnote confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for > the presence of known computer viruses by the MessageLabs Virus > Control Centre. However, it is still recommended that you use > local virus scanning software to monitor for the presence of viruses. > *********************************************************************