RE(2): RE(2): [Lowfer] Loop Ideas ??

[Bill Ashlock]

Paul,
 
I just read some of the google references under "E/H antenna" and indeed this is the infamous Cross Field Antenna. All this controversy about the coax becoming the actual radiator, instead of the antenna itself, could be resolved by simply placing the xmtr next to the antenna and not using a coax line at all  (Gee, where did that come from JA? :) Of course the power leads and any modulation or control lines would have to be run though chokes or one large common mode choke to remove currents on them, but that is easy.
 
I would think that LF would be the ideal area of the spectrum to prove this antenna's worth - one way or the other. Like I've said many time before: "There's no magic in an LF antenna"
 
Bill 




Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:59:55 -0500From: k5wms at aristotle.netTo: ashlockw at hotmail.com; lowfer at mailman.qth.netSubject: RE(2): RE(2): [Lowfer] Loop Ideas ??CC: 


Like I said in my original post I am going to have some study to come up to speed. 
  
First we heard about it was on VK5BR, Lloyd Butlers site. I got on google and found tons of 
info. It will take me all night to digest. 
  
One site suggested a 137khz antenna. Each cylinder would be 6m long and 2m in diameter. 
  
I think for experimenting I would build one for 80m. 
  
My dentist says he gets kind of down in the mouth about his job because it get to be a grind. Good luck. 
  
73 Paul 


-----Original Message-----From: Bill Ashlock <ashlockw at hotmail.com>Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:50:03 -0400To: "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" <lowfer at mailman.qth.net> Subject: RE: RE(2): [Lowfer] Loop Ideas ?? 

Hi Paul, I'm still back in MA as this weekend is a total bust for working outside. Have a dentist apt on Monday afternoon so I'll just stay down here and nurse my sore joints :) Let me check on the E/H antenna on google and get back to you. That isn't the so-called infamous cross field antenna  that nobody seems to be able to make work as advertized, is it? Bill


Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:41:51 -0500From: k5wms at aristotle.netTo: ashlockw at hotmail.com; lowfer at mailman.qth.netSubject: RE(2): [Lowfer] Loop Ideas ??CC: 


Bill 
this may be slightly off the subject, but your email reminded me of the e/h antenna discussions I have 
had with one of my friends. I went back to the VK5BR site and refreshed my memory then checked the 
E/H antenna on google. Made me wonder if this is a practical antenna for lowfer work. Lots of  infor out there. 

I would need a lot of study to come up to speed on the subject. Has anyone tried the E/H antenna on 
137 or 185khz? 

What do you think? 

Paul K5WMS 


-----Original Message-----From: Bill Ashlock <ashlockw at hotmail.com>Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 16:55:30 -0400To: "Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands" <lowfer at mailman.qth.net> Subject: RE: [Lowfer] Loop Ideas ?? 

RX loop enthusiasts: Here's a question for you: With few exceptions every time I run an A/B comparison of a loop and a nearby Eprobe at LF I get exactly the same weak signal performance - IE the same S/N. This is in a controlled environment with no local interference and I always adjust the signals to exactly the same level and rotate the loop for maximum signal. The only exception in this comparison is when there is a directional noise signal and the loop can null this out, making the loop signal have the better S/N of the two. I would think that because of the figure '8' reception pattern of the loop the sensitivity to typical atmospheric noise would be reduced and the loop would always be the winner in these comparisons.  Maybe I'm wrongly assuming that the AT noise has equal E field and H field components and/or the E field component always the same strength as the H field component. Another possibility is that the loop has more noise pick up due to its wider azimuth angle pattern. Any thoughts? Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/lowfer/attachments/20080927/ba8ec2b3/attachment.htm