To: | <[email protected]> |
---|---|
Subject: | LF: Re: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX |
From: | "Alan Melia" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:24:16 +0100 |
Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024; t=1281713055; bh=DE3y22l9kLR7VL59APsMiXM7vi+ncbgFsxDoyiWvn38=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=vMPi/xGQTfDRCA9n3unwrEeIgDzh819SuYlzB9y9l4Yt65R8kxUNQrxCEh6XAvmw8Cvum38kaAyTdK3vb+SWh+M2E5gkODJLg4hOmiyYbGVbHKpvNfYPk2WGnyw9xMfIYhIGFWP+JPXH/5wKoeHL4GHoVj5cls6DIRrkoy/3Lv4= |
Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=gCFC9XWtj3f3ZP4O58KK0OJ+FDjRK8JJNbHfn/FqnSBL4Fjk1GhK7SvxTD7b0s9T+TlNGf5PTm8gk59i1K2dKF5NRN/kBCxmv+IkgO/ZI39Bft7otUNwL1jp/vfNCBwUnDfOuAwnrcm+T1dKGV3/WoHFQ4LevnxYHFLrmk40BCE= ; |
Domainkey-status: | good (testing) |
References: | <[email protected]> |
Reply-to: | [email protected] |
Sender: | [email protected] |
Hi Roger if it is laid on the ground the currnet will couple to the lossy ground increasing the aerial loos and reducing the already low efficiency of the loop. You might search for articles by Bill Ashlock who has done a lot of systematic experiments with TX loops in the States. I dont recall anyone bar Dave Sargent using a loop in the UK. Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Lapthorn" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:08 PM Subject: LF: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX > Having considered the antenna options for my small garden, I'm going to > erect a TX loop antenna rather than a Marconi vertical for 136kHz: the > earthing issues are removed and it is easier to build a capacitor selection > box (to tune and match the loop) than wind a huge loading coil and match it. > I've seen some of the webpages dealing with these and understand basically > what is needed (large loop area, thick wire, capacitor match-box, dealing > with high RF currents, etc). I understand the loop will have directionality > and nulls. > > My question is this. *Is there any reason why the bottom of the loop cannot > be laid along the ground rather than elevated a few metres?* Most designs > show the bottom elevated a bit, but if laid on the soil I could use thick > coax or multiple wires for part of the loop so reducing the loop resistance. > > > Views appreciated, although it may be a case of "suck it and see". > > 73s > Roger G3XBM > > -- > http://g3xbm-qrp.blogspot.com/ > http://www.g3xbm.co.uk > http://www.youtube.com/user/g3xbm > G3XBM GQRP 1678 ISWL G11088 > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: LF: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX, Warren Ziegler |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: LF: Re: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX, Warren Ziegler |
Previous by Thread: | Re: LF: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX, Warren Ziegler |
Next by Thread: | Re: LF: Re: A question about loops for 136 and 500kHz TX, Warren Ziegler |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |