Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28936 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 12:18:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 12:18:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 15235 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2002 12:18:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2002 12:18:00 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16h9qc-0008Vy-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:46:50 +0000 Received: from mail4.mx.voyager.net ([216.93.66.203]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16h9qa-0008Vt-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:46:49 +0000 Received: from k6500 (d44.ias0.mpls.mn.pclink.com [206.11.3.243]) by mail4.mx.voyager.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with SMTP id g22C8Z562595 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 07:08:35 -0500 (EST) From: "WE0H" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: RE: LF: RE: Diversity Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 06:09:34 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <3C80AB6D.DAFB4C83@netscapeonline.co.uk> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: The loop has to be at least 13m to 15m vertically and at least 762sq meter total area or bigger to work decent. If you go with a loop of 15m vertical or greater and make the horizontal part more like 30.5m or so, it will work much better. All of these figures are for 166kc. I would make a loop for 136kc much bigger if you can. Bill has found that he can run the loops in the tree branches without any trouble. So that helps in finding a place to put one up. I should be able to setup a temporary 610m loop this summer and try it on 166.5kc. I think it is going to work well. 73's, Mike>WE0H http://www.geocities.com/we0h/index.html -----Original Message----- From: majordom@post.thorcom.com [mailto:majordom@post.thorcom.com]On Behalf Of gii3kev Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 4:38 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: RE: Diversity WE0H wrote: > Hi Mal, > When you say the loop doesn't pick up the low angle DX signals, are you > using a horizontal or vertical loop??? I am not using any loop antennas at present but intend to make a vertical loop as per my message. > Bill Ashlock on the east coast of the > US is using vertical loops on 1750-meters with excellent results. He can > transmit a 1w signal 1000 miles easily. What kind of loops are the Europeans > using for transmit??? Over the past couple of years several EU stations have been using loops for transmitting as well as vertical antennas and when testing one against the other the vertical antenna outperforms the loop by a long way, very big difference between the two systems. I have made this observation while working and listening to their signals at this QTH and using my vertical antenna for both TX and RX. I expect they are using small vertical loops near the ground but I am not sure, they might join in with some comment. I intend to make my loop vertical and each side about 20 metres long, still small for 136 khz, but bigger than some. My experience of small loops relative to frequency on 160 metres is that they do not perform anything like a full size vertical. They do not pull in the long haul dx like the vertical ie KH6/VK/ZL etc A full size loop for the frequency would be a different story. Using small loops and suitable RF amplification on receive can have advantages, especially for those living in environmentally noise polluted areas. I intend to use my loop for RX comparisons against the vertical and not TX. Maybe your friends are transmitting on full size loops. Let me know how you get on and try a vertical as well for comparison. 73 de Mal/G3KEV