Return-Path: Received: from mtain-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtain-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.96.11]) by air-md10.mail.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILINMD103-8b9a4d83e204a3; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:51:48 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id B196738000084; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Q0iVL-0007Nx-Jz for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:50:47 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Q0iVK-0007No-UD for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:50:46 +0000 Received: from outbound04.telus.net ([199.185.220.223] helo=defout.telus.net) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0iVI-0000Ck-M7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:50:46 +0000 Received: from edtncm03 ([199.185.220.221]) by priv-edtnes23.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.8.01.03.00 201-2260-125-20100507) with ESMTP id <20110318225042.VQQX22376.priv-edtnes23.telusplanet.net@edtncm03> for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:50:42 -0600 Received: from [192.168.1.74] ([75.157.141.251]) by edtncm03 with bizsmtp id Lmqi1g01G5Reinf01mqiKZ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:50:42 -0600 X-Telus-Outbound-IP: 75.157.141.251 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=qJkQFdQ48ZbK16dQTlA9duG84kZgQD4m081ovRDdU+I= c=1 sm=2 a=jVez_htjv6wA:10 a=4aPOdFJL9SoA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=YQC89JyhfjNnUcjx8nUA:9 a=2jvInza35kQ1KKw73frid1Z9ka4A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 Message-ID: <4D83E1BF.3020505@telus.net> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:50:39 -0700 From: Scott Tilley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4D83D475.9090609@telus.net> <4D83D903.7000706@telus.net> <4D83DC3E.5020607@freenet.de> In-Reply-To: <4D83DC3E.5020607@freenet.de> X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: Loop TX antennas at VLF? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 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-global-disposition: G x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d600b4d83e2035643 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hi Wolf Hence my comment about considerable engineering required! 73 Scott VE7TIL On 3/18/2011 3:27 PM, wolf_dl4yhf wrote: > Hi Scott, > > you wrote: > >The practicality of a loop would depend on its size and the tuner > design. Stable caps would be needed and these caps would be very > expensive which resulted in my thoughts drifting to the concept of a > gyrator. Essentially an inductor used to simulate a cap with suitable > active components... Google 'gyrator'. > < > > Ummm.. active components indeed .. I only know Gyrators in very old > narrow-band VLF receiver designs, only low signal handling capabilities. > Wouldn't these 'active components' be essentially a power amplifier > capable of driving highy reactive loads ? > If we had such an output driver, we wouldn't need a tuner... more or > less. > > Or am I missing something ? > > Cheers, > Wolf . > > >