Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9636 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 16:24:32 -0000 Received: from netmail01.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.219) by mailstore with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 16:24:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 5132 invoked from network); 25 Dec 2002 16:24:19 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail01.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 25 Dec 2002 16:24:19 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18REJg-0002nG-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:23:32 +0000 Received: from [63.171.43.2] (helo=ns2.genesis-technology.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18REJg-0002n7-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 16:23:32 +0000 Received: from we0h ([65.165.20.173]) by ns2.genesis-technology.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id gBPGNSP22398 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:23:28 -0600 From: "WE0H" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 10:24:04 -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: <000f01c2abed$d1cbfa00$015e89d9@jackie> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: RE: Re: RE: Re: 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=8.0tests=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 What is special about an Ashlock loop you ask; the tuning components. Nothing new and exotic just explained real well by Bill and tested over and over to refine the procedure and construction and installation of a super-performing loop. Everyone that has followed his advise to the exact letter has gotten a good signal on the band in the US. I am waiting for the license to be mailed back so I can cram 400w into my loop. If I can make 1w go easily past 160 miles with a totally audible CW signal day and night, imagine what 400w or even less would do as I don't think it will take the full legal limit to make solid CW contacts with this antenna and decent conditions. I understand that most amateur LF antennas are inefficient, but these loops have been bad mouthed for a long time and we have an Engineer here that has taken on the task of designing and testing the heck out of a 50' by 50' loop on 185kc and come up with a few variations that tested in the real world on the air and continue to prove their awesome design and engineering to perform excellent. Yes, verticals do work well with the proper installation. Or you can make a lousy installed vertical work with a bunch of power. But take a lousy installed loop or lousy matched loop and it wont work worth a darn. Follow Bill's advise and it will work. Mike>WE0H http://www.we0h.us/lf WE 185.3026kc QRSS & -.-. .-- -----Original Message----- From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 2:16 AM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Re: RE: Re: Re: Loops again ----- Original Message ----- From: WE0H To: Sent: 25 December 2002 02:40 Subject: LF: RE: Re: Re: Loops again > Then why did my 1-watt signal go 1302 miles the other week? I was sending > QRSS-30 and the receive station was southwest from here. My loop points > north and south. It usually goes out past 500 miles in QRSS and over 160 > miles in CW with the receiving station listening to it with his ears. It is > an Ashlock loop maybe that is the difference??? What's special about an Ashlock loop? The article I mentioned does say that electrically tiny loops are inefficient - but aren't electrically tiny verticals inefficient too? Steve