Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30314 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 10:17:24 -0000 Received: from marstons.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.223) by mailstore with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 10:17:24 -0000 X-Priority: 3 Received: (qmail 10031 invoked by uid 10001); 24 Oct 2002 11:23:22 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by marstons.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 11:23:22 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 184f3x-0005pR-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:18:01 +0100 Received: from [194.73.73.93] (helo=rhenium.btinternet.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184f3w-0005pI-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:18:00 +0100 Received: from host213-122-13-149.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.13.149] helo=there) by rhenium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 184f3w-0006ei-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:18:00 +0100 From: "Steve Thompson" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:17:58 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <001f01c27a94$06b88660$0504210a@c.scope> <5.1.0.14.0.20021024112102.029eadf8@pb623250.kuleuven.be> In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20021024112102.029eadf8@pb623250.kuleuven.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Re: LF: alternative antenna for 136kHz Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03version=2.42 Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group On Thursday 24 October 2002 09:27, you wrote: > Dear LF-group, > > For some time I have been "playing arround" with an idea for an alternative > antenna. I intend to give it a try when I find some time (during winter), > but meanwhile I have put the idea on my webpage : > > http://www.qsl.net/on7yd/elmag/elmag.htm > > I will apreciate any comment either positive or negative (preventing me > from spending some time and money on a foolish idea). An immediate thought - if the loop is big enough that you don't need the lumped loading L, then it's a single turn loop. If some of the L is packed in a wound component that doesn't radiate, then you lose (I'm guessing) according to the reduction in loop area, and by some function of the ratio of (inductance in the loop/inductance in the coil). Steve