wrote:
Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current 70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.

First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly helped
many newbie SWL learn how to errect
a "long" wire antenna. And many people swear by all of their loops.
However, my
experience suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at
http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some Antennas Signal to
Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to loves
it.
Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running by
the
weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.

Terry

I have an open mind on this issue. I use one of the Wellbrook loops and
I like it, but I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a small active
vertical can be just as quiet. What generates confusion about this
issue are the conflicting reports one hears and even the conflicting
experimental results one reads about. I visited the
http://www.kongsfjord.no site and found it very interesting. However,
if you look at some of the reviews available on the Wellbrook website,
you'll see different tests and comparisons that yield results that are
much more favorable to the Wellbrooks. There may well be something
wrong with the tests and comparisons carried out in those reviews. I
don't see anything obviously suspect about them, but I don't have the
technical expertise that some of the folks in this group have. In any
case, I think it's this kind of data that accounts for the reputation
the Wellbrook loops have as being extremely quiet antennas.