Return-Path: Received: (qmail 228 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 23:08:52 -0000 Received: from warrior.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.227) by mailstore with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 23:08:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 5604 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2002 23:09:07 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by warrior.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 7 Oct 2002 23:09:07 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.10) id 17ygz2-0002DB-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:08:16 +0100 Received: from [216.93.66.201] (helo=mail2.mx.voyager.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17ygz1-0002D2-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:08:16 +0100 Received: from k6500 (d7.as3.mpls.mn.voyager.net [169.207.249.231] (may be forged)) by mail2.mx.voyager.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with SMTP id g97N8C634569 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:08:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "WE0H" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:08:58 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 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: <001601c26e21$26c954e0$e9d0fc3e@l8p8y6> Subject: LF: RE: Lasso alias loop Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0tests=BIG_FONT,HTML_50_70,HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE, HTML_FONT_COLOR_NAME,IN_REP_TO,MAY_BE_FORGED, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OUTLOOKversion=2.42 X-Spam-Level: * Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Hello Mal,

 

What size and type of wire do you use in your loop??? Do you know the AC resistance of the loop??? These are very important parameters, as Wild Bill would point out. Maybe your loop has a very high Rac and this is why it performs poorer than your huge vertical. Anyhow, let us know the wire size and such and we can understand a bit more what you are using.

Thanks es 73’s,

Mike>WE0H

http://www.we0h.us/lf.html

185.3026kc QRSS-30 & CW@15wpm

ID is "WE"

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of hamilton mal
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:46 AM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Lasso alias loop

 

What us folks in the UK and Europe must remember is, that the USA boys are biased towards loops(lassos). They were brought up on the ranches lassoing cattle and naturally when it comes to radio this is the way they think, and its hard to convince them otherwise.

Although my 90 metre loop (natural resonance) is good it is not a patch on my vertical system.

The loop also has the disadvantage of being bi-directional, whereas the vertical captures signals from all directions.

I find on receive the loop is well down in its favourite direction from the vertical and on transmit poor.

I am not exactly comparing like with like because the loop is 90 metres and well elevated, but my vertical is well over 100 ft and supports 3 x inv L antennas each one 100ft plus, vertical and at least 300 ft horiz. Total inductive base loading is less than 0.5 mh on 136 khz. I intend to improve on this configuration when I get the time. The ground system consists of several 300 ft plus insulated radials. Both the vertical and loop are matched to 50 ohms and fed with 50 ohm cable to the shack where all the equipment is designed for 50 ohms.The antennas and base feed are some hundreds of feet away from the shack, away from any possible domestic electrical noise.

I think the roundup days are over in America and they ought to try some verticals on LF

The next steamer leaving Belfast for Baltimore/Philadelphia is in 3 weeks time and I might send over some verticals. This service has been operating since 1823 and is reliable, still using sails.

 

73 De Mal/G3KEV