Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 8CDE438008107; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1RXXtI-0000vR-Ij for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:43:28 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1RXXtI-0000vI-6B for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:43:28 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1RXXtH-0002tu-0E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:43:28 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pB5ChPnQ027441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:43:26 +0100 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id pB5ChPg2008245 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:43:25 +0100 Message-ID: <4EDCBC0F.2020006@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:41:51 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4EDC0AE0.7050207@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4EDC0DB5.2040703@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <4EDC1126.5070704@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD=1.426 Subject: Re: LF: XGJ in TF 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=0.0 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-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:404625536:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40cd4edcbcac283e X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Am 05.12.2011 02:14, schrieb Warren Ziegler: > Stefan, > I just re-read your post, I gather you are asking about Litz wire > as a loop conductor? > My friend Bill Ashlock tried using ex-Decca Litz wire as a loop and > found that it was too fragile, individual strands broke and the wire > became more lossy than conventional wire. Ah, R, i should have read this mail before ;-) Interesting. And what about a combination of Rg214+RF litz wire? Or a small steel wire + the RF litz? Well, if the weight is not a problem then RG214 is very fine i think. But it would be better without the inner conductor and isolation. It would be interesting to try a longer copper plate, say 0.1m x 0.5mm as the cross section area. Small holes could be drilled and then fixed to a steel wire, say 2mm diameter. That must be even better! Take a look at this link: http://www.gacopper.com/012-CopperStrap.html I would try the 2'' strap, a thickness of 0.012'' is ideal. At least for the lower part (close to ground) this must be the best choice. There you could use even broader plates. BTW what is the height above ground of the lower part of the loop? > I am considering using large diameter aluminum wire, the conductivity > is of course not quite as good as copper but the skin depth is greater > so that the net result is that Al is 33% more lossy than copper at LF > frequencies but Al is only about 25% of the weight as Cu (also Al is > about 25% of the cost of copper) so for the same weight of wire Al > should be superior. Don't you expect mechanical problems when using Al? 73, Stefan/DK7FC