Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <DDC408CAE72CD511827A0002A5131CD6D9F5EC@exc_wil08>
From: "Ashlock,William" <William.Ashlock@edwards.boc.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: RE: LF: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [Lowfer] RE: litz wire
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:34:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the suport <G> This guy is something else!

>It was starting to make my head ache too   HAR

>Any up dates on the time to publish the final chapter on the Loop  ??

Yes I finally found some time to get this together over last weekend. Just
about done. The hold- up was running enough tests to calculate a good number
for the ground loss.

>looks like the FCC is going to make it hard fer folks to radiate 1 Watt
and the loop is going to be my answer when the time comes to 137 Khz

I keep coming up with and am hearing more and more reasons for the loop to
become more popular as the result of the coming 137 band. I guess some of
the reasons why the European's have not jumped on the loop in a big way is
that they: 1)Don't have the width of real estate, 2) Have enough input power
to reach a 1w ERP without going to a loop, 3) Or (most likely) don't
understand LF loop antennas. Since the height of the antenna is pretty much
limited for most guys to 70ft or so due to local codes, and there is only so
much additional improvement in using a big top hat, the only way to up the
ERP to 1w is to use a loop. I'll calculate how big a loop has to be to
radiate 1w with 100w in (IE: 10% efficient). Not small, but possible.

Bill   

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET delivered 
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/