Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6442 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 18:08:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 18:08:03 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnLVy-0005Eh-RO for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:08:27 +0100 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1BnLVy-0005EJ-Ne for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:08:26 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BnLVY-000DXf-TY for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:08:01 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BnLUh-0002AW-2Q for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:07:07 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BnLUg-0002AL-Mv for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:07:06 +0100 Received: from h14.rdg.cp.net ([209.228.29.64] helo=n068.sc1.cp.net) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BnLUc-0007O6-Tu for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:07:06 +0100 Received: from l8p8y6 (62.252.208.105) by n068.sc1.cp.net (7.0.027.3-1) id 40FA2ABE000636F0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:06:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000101c46ec1$5e3e4820$69d0fc3e@l8p8y6> From: "hamilton mal" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <002f01c46df8$a3fcfec0$72cdfc3e@l8p8y6> <005901c46e86$99e744c0$3401a8c0@JKA> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 02:19:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.385,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: LF: Re: Re: Loops v Verticals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 autolearn=no version=2.63 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: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Andrews" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: LF: Re: Loops v Verticals > >For those that do not know. Research around Europe has shown that VERTICALS > are the only antennas suitable for Transmitting on LF. Loops are fine for > Receiving, little or large but the bigger the better. Who has ever heard of > a LF broadcasting station using loops for TX. < > > Mal, > > Perhaps because no LF broadcasting stations operate from small garden back > yards with trees and no open space. > > I certainly have no quarrel with research done in Europe. Please encourage > those doing it to use this forum to discuss it. Thus far, I have only seen > your discouraging comments versus positive results from U.S. experimenters. Who in the U.S. has worked the distance on a loop that I have covered on normal CW using a vertical > Scarborought to Russia, you must have read about it. If you need more info let me know. > John Andrews, W1TAG > > >