Return-Path: Received: from rly-mh05.mx.aol.com (rly-mh05.mail.aol.com [172.21.166.141]) by air-mh08.mail.aol.com (v121_r5.5) with ESMTP id MAILINMH082-bd549a82dbd292; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:15:38 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-mh05.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINMH055-bd549a82dbd292; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:15:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Ld7EP-0006gA-8j for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:41 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Ld7EO-0006g1-Tw for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:40 +0000 Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld7EO-0003DD-88 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:40 +0000 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090227181434.KPWA4080.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:34 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.33] (really [82.22.242.113]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090227181434.DLMQ22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.2.33]> for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:34 +0000 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:14:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <49A82D84.827.1398FD9@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> In-reply-to: <4A11BD1B67394BDD9B3001D8F176B76F@DR2> References: , <4A11BD1B67394BDD9B3001D8F176B76F@DR2> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) Content-description: Mail message body X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=8pgNhVwbzi8A:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=ciPogYxtZUBpcy9XnssA:9 a=w1F-hvja3uo6_bWNMZsA:7 a=rk8JSWd4puYUF4PJBhqfWAz7t1cA:4 a=oltf0pfCdT4A:10 X-Karma: unknown: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: LF Antennas - back to basics Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Dave Riley write about loop antennas: > As for the CONS, well I just don't think of any... Somebody?? > There are two 'cons' that I can think of. One is the weight of the low-loss wire required. This would cause a problem in my own case as local restrictions lead me to use a fairly fragile mast. The other is directivity in the form of two sharp nulls. I have used a loop in the past and for a short while held the 73kHz distance record using it. However, after some comparitive tests, I opted for a Marconi which at that frequency had similar 'gain' but was almost omnidirectional. In all other respects you are, of course, right. Mike, G3XDV ==========