Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Loops v Verticals

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Loops v Verticals
From: WE0H Mike <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:05:30 -0500
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
No YOU want coverage in all directions. All antennas have disadvantages. Chill out Mal. Prozaq does wonders for symtoms like this. LOL!!!


hamilton mal wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: LF: Loops v Verticals

broadcasters want omni coverage so a loop
really wouldnt work in this application
Not true. Broadcast stns located in coastal areas do not waste energy beaming out to sea. Likewise the old marine coastal stations working ships at sea tried to direct the RF seawards and not inland.
I never did see any LOOP antennas at these installations.
Loops do have the disadvantage of being bi-directional and not what a radio amateur wants. On LF we want coverage in all directions.
however for Amateur work they would appear to work
quite well,, The proof is in the pudding where a TX at
1 watt input provides good coverage,,,  if it weren't for TX loops
folk with small lots and shade trees ,,,LF activity would certainly suffer
But verticals do work after a fashion
Bob  K3DJC
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:26:21 +0100 "hamilton mal" <[email protected]> writes:
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.  
73 de G3KEV
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>