Return-Path: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Received: (qmail 10526 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 15:09:48 -0000
Received: from murphys.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.225)  by mailstore with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 15:09:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 17931 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 15:09:35 -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; 24 Dec 2002 15:09:35 -0000
X-SQ: A
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18Qqfx-0006t3-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:08:57 +0000
Received: from [62.253.164.47] (helo=mta7-svc.business.ntl.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18Qqfw-0006su-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:08:57 +0000
Received: from there ([217.137.94.49]) by mta7-svc.business.ntl.com          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP          id <20021224150855.WFSF19755.mta7-svc.business.ntl.com@there>          for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>;          Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:08:55 +0000
From: "Steve Thompson" <steve@eltac.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:13:47 +0000
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1]
References: <000c01c2aaa4$3a7e2820$9ce8fc3e@l8p8y6> <005401c2ab1e$499d2840$035e89d9@jackie> <003601c2ab4a$46750940$89ccfc3e@l8p8y6>
In-reply-to: <003601c2ab4a$46750940$89ccfc3e@l8p8y6>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20021224150855.WFSF19755.mta7-svc.business.ntl.com@there>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Loops again
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02version=2.43
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false

On Tuesday 24 December 2002 12:44, hamilton mal wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Thompson" <steve@eltac.co.uk>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 7:30 AM
> Subject: LF: Re: Loops again
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: hamilton mal <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
> > To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> > Sent: 23 December 2002 16:55
> > Subject: LF: Loops again
> >
> >
> > With all the loop talk that has been going on since before time began has
> > anyone found a design for a near perfect small loop, suppose its like how
> > long is a piece of string, obviously the bigger the better but then there
>
> is
>
> > the diminishing returns senario, it there much noticeable difference
>
> between
>
> > a 2 meter side square loop and a 4meter.
> > Which is better a single turn loop, several turns in series, several
> > turns in parallel and the best method of feed and matching at the loop.
> > <snip> ------------------
> > This site gives a good treatise on loop antennas from first principles,
>
> and
>
> > provides the maths to let you consider what to expect with changes in
> > size and numbers of turns.
> >
> > http://www.ece.mcmaster.ca/faculty/georgieva/temp/Antennas_L11.pdf
> >
> > Steve
>
> Thanks Steve.
> Its a wonderful article and has certainly refreshed my mathematical skills.
> It starts off by saying that small loops are very INEFFICIENT and because
> of the high losses really only suitable for Receiving purposes. Not very
> promising.
I'm glad you found it useful - I found the maths just about manageable, and 
the final equations very useable. If you go up a layer to .........../temp/ 
you will find a series of a dozen or more such 'lectures' which deal with 
most antenna topics in the same way.

>From what I remember, I reckoned that, for transmitting, you are better off 
making a larger loop than going for more turns, for any given amount of wire.

Steve