Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: (qmail 11305 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 16:50:58 -0000
Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225)  by mailstore with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 16:50:58 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received: (qmail 5173 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 16:50:21 -0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70)  by murphys.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 16:50:21 -0000
X-SQ: A
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 17yb4N-0001Ow-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:49:23 +0100
Received: from [212.125.75.12] (helo=mail4.messagelabs.com) by post.thorcom.com with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 17yb4M-0001On-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:49:22 +0100
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 11443 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 16:42:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ukfw1.ge.boc.com) (193.131.2.157)  by server-20.tower-4.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 16:42:41 -0000
Received: from z-160-100-160-136.est.ibm.com ([160.100.160.136]) by ukfw1.ge.boc.com; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:28:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from exc_wil04.edwards.boc.com ([162.118.144.226]) by exc_cra03.edwards.boc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id TP3FGP8T; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:10:07 +0100
Received: by EXC_WIL04 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <T64R2PM9>; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:06:56 -0400
Message-ID: <DDC408CAE72CD511827A0002A5131CD6D9F7AE@exc_wil08>
From: "Ashlock,William" <William.Ashlock@edwards.boc.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:06:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Subject: LF: RE: Re:RE: LF Revival
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,INVALID_MSGID,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01version=2.42
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group

Jim M,

>I remain to be convinced about the benefits of loop TX antennas.
>If you have the choice of a tuned wire 15m long in total , or a 15m by 15m
loop, it is not
>surprising that the latter is a better bet - it is a much bigger antenna,
after all.

Actually under 'ideal' site conditions such as an open field, free from the
effect of trees, and where a good ground system can be installed, the top
loaded vertical with similar overall dimensions beats the loop for radiation
efficiency by 6db on average. Typical residential sites, however, are
another story. In my home situation the same 6db favors the loop over the
vertical - even for a #12ga loop wire. Additionally, I have found the loop
is whole lot more rugged when it comes to extremes in wind, rain, ice and
snow. What makes 'looping' even more fun, at least for me, is that this
success stands in the face of so much negative text written about the TX
loop. Renowned authors of antenna textbooks often state that the small loop
(I.E.: <<1WL) is of little value for transmitting.

Bill A         

_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.com