Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18269 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 23:25:17 -0000 Received: from netmail01.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 23:25:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 20363 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 23:25:08 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 23:25:08 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18RKtC-0003rv-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:24:38 +0000 Received: from [63.171.43.2] (helo=ns2.genesis-technology.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18RKtC-0003rm-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 23:24:38 +0000 Received: from we0h ([65.165.20.173]) by ns2.genesis-technology.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id gBPNOWP11105 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:24:32 -0600 From: "WE0H" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:25:14 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: RE: Loops again Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=6.0tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01, USER_AGENT_OUTLOOKversion=2.43 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: 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 You got that right Mike. Everyone has their favorite antenna and more power to them for using it. Mike>WE0H http://www.we0h.us/lf -----Original Message----- From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of Mike Staines Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 9:54 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Loops again 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