From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <148.2ee559a3.2e307880@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:55:12 EDT
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Loops v Verticals
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

In a message dated 7/21/04 2:28:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
m.underhill@eim.surrey.ac.uk writes:

> The type of environment is an essential part of the
>  equation and so results in different environments are particularly
>  of interest.

This is exactly the crux of the matter.  Mathematically, for a given height 
of electrically short vertical antenna, a loop having the same diameter (or 
else the same length and height) will be the inferior performer IF both are in 
the clear--and, it is directional, which may be disadvantageous.  If they are 
not in the clear, environmental factors degrade the vertical's field strength 
faster than the loop's.

This is a dreadfully old and pointless debate.  Mathematically and 
empirically, the results have long been established.  Huge verticals=wonderful at LF if 
you have the wherewithal.  Short verticals=acceptable if you have adequate 
clear space and ground conductivity.  Loops of comparable dimensions to small 
vertical=compromised performance, but far from useless!

If one is not among the chosen few with half-vast tracts of land for an 
antenna farm, he must sometimes make compromises to accomplish anything at all.