From: "WE0H" <we0h@core.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: RE: TX Loop antenna conductors
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:46:35 -0600
Message-ID: <KLEFIABELPJAFJEAGFHHAEJLCGAA.we0h@core.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-reply-to: <DDC408CAE72CD511827A0002A5131CD6D9F4EE@exc_wil08>
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

So don't waste your money on #8 wire when the #12 is slightly lossier and a
heck of a lot cheaper. Now if you have really big thousand+ strand Litz
wire, then go with that. Am I right on this Bill???

Mike>WE0H
http://www.geocities.com/we0h/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: majordom@post.thorcom.com [mailto:majordom@post.thorcom.com]On Behalf
Of Ashlock,William
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:33 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: TX Loop antenna conductors

All,

I get a bit perturbed when I see comparisons of various loop conductors
using Rdc values since the 'skin effect' within the conductors causes the
Rac to be much higher at the frequencies we use.

To prove the point, I calculated the 'skin effect' of two different loop
conductors. For #12  (2.05mm) at 185k the Rac/Rdc came out to 3 and for #8
(3.26mm) the Rac/Rdc was 5.  Even though the Rdc for #8 is over 2.5 times
lower than #12 for the same length, the Rac is only about 35% lower. This
amounts to  a mere 2.6db signal improvement, assuming no soil loss. With
typical soil loss factored in, the signal improvement would be less than 2.2
db.

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.
*********************************************************************