From: "Mike Staines" <Mike_Staines@Email.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:53:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CKEGJIEJBKEKMCNEDBKFEEOGCGAA.Mike_Staines@Email.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-reply-to: <000f01c2abed$d1cbfa00$015e89d9@jackie>
Importance: Normal
Subject: LF: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Loops again
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he said:

> The article I mentioned does say that electrically tiny loops are
> inefficient - but aren't electrically tiny verticals inefficient too?

Unfortunately, I suspect that this discussion will now degrade into
comparisons based on gain per square foot of swampland.

Loop vs. Monopole is like Kenwood Vs Icom. Or Ford vs. Chevy. At least at
this stage of the game. They both work. They both have their advantages and
disadvantages. I don't think that anyone will win any awards because they
used one over the other (all things being equal).

For *MYSELF*, the loop is a godsend. With my yard (small, treed, metal
buildings) a monopole with ground system would be a nightmare to install and
maintain. The loop is simple and out of the way. But if I had the property
and resources to install a vertical would I? You bet. Just for variety.

Wishing everyone best wishes,
Mike
wa1ptc
Central New York