Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
"Steve" wrote:

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.


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.


- One problem of post in a public news group is
- that at times I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Telamon - You Just Keep-On Writing :
Cause This Brick Wall Is Listening ! ~ RHF

- Most peoples experience in high noise areas will favor
- a loop antenna over a dipole for locally picked up noise.

OK !

- This is an expected theoretical result of local induction
- fields affecting loop and dipole antennas.

OK !

- The IP2 and IP3 differences in the active antennas
- are due to the amplifier design not the antenna.

The ablity to 'rotate' a small Loop Antenna to Null-Out
a Local Offending Radio Station {Signal Source} does
have to be factored into the practical {use} equation.
-vice- A small Vertical Whip Antenna {Omni-Directional} :
Given that the Amplifier used with both Antennas has
the same characteristics.

However - The Practical {Use} Equation {Societal Factoring}
may make the 'near invisibility' of the Small {Short-and-Thin}
Vertical Whip Antenna the only realistic choice for an Antenna
by a Shortwave Listener (SWL) "When NO Antenna Is Allowed."

what antenna ? i don't see an antenna :
i ain't got no stinking antenna ~ RHF