Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27518 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 12:36:40 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 12:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 25885 invoked by uid 10001); 1 Apr 2003 12:36:39 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 12:36:39 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 190Kvo-00061o-71 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:32:00 +0100 Received: from [62.253.162.42] (helo=mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 190Kva-00061f-TP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:31:47 +0100 Received: from mike1 ([80.4.107.45]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.37 201-229-121-137-20020806) with SMTP id <20030401123146.XMLF9882.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@mike1> for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c2f84a$e8b77240$2602a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <002b01c2f824$ecb39b60$2602a8c0@WorkGroup> <002a01c2f83d$c99e8d60$0500a8c0@charter.net> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:33:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: LF: Re: Re: Re: RE: GAIN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.4 required=5.0tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCESversion=2.51 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.51 (1.174.2.5-2003-03-20-exp) 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 > > I have seen people use 'series' and 'parallel' resonating when talking > about > > loops, but what is the difference - surely if it is a continuous loop they > > are both the same? Can someone clarify, please. > The difference is in the coupling method. The "series" version uses a > step-down transformer between the transmission line and the loop, with the > low-impedance secondary wired in series with the loop and tuning capacitor. > The "parallel" version uses a step-up transformer, with the high-impedance > secondary placed across the tuning capacitor. > The performance of the antenna should be the same in either case. > John Andrews, W1TAG Ah. So it really refers to parallel or series feeding. What about using the capacitor potential divider method, or the coupling various coupling loop methods? Mike, G3XDV http://www.lf.thersgb.net ====================