Hello Richard,

What a curious defense for magnetic antennas's noise immunity.

Where did I mention that this relates to noise immunity? I only tried
to point you to a misconception regarding the use of the 2*D^2/lambda
formula.

[start quote]
The traditional half-wave dipole antenna that exhibits the traditional
usage for distinguishing between near and far:
2 40 /80 = 40 meters
a smaller quarter-wave dipole antenna
2 20 /80 = 10 meters
a tenth wave dipole antenna
2 8 /80 = 1.6 meters
a fortieth wave dipole antenna
2 2 /80 = 10 centimeters

Let's see where discussion follows in this regard.
[end quote]

You want to believe us that a usable antenna with size=2m and
lambda=80m satisfies far field conditions at 10 cm, I really hope I
understood you wrong.

However, the magnetic antenna is not immune from the reactive fields
of noise emitters that are very much larger than any loop discussed
here. It is the field of the emitter that is important. I thought I
would wait and see if anyone cottoned on to that aspect of the
discussion. If we proceed with the assumption (repeated here):



The dominant reactive field from a small "magnetic" loop or "electric"
antenna at lambda=80m extends to somewhat more then 10cm, think of
about 5m. Though the far fields may be similar, the reactive fields
are completely different in orientation, strength and E/H ratio. See
for example the link posted earlier:
http://www.conformity.com/past/0102reflections.html

This will result in complete different coupling to conductors present
in the reactive field zone. When using reciprocity, this will also
affect the coupling from noise current in the conductors towards the
antenna. So I can't follow your statement below:

wimpie: Smaller loop size does not result in smaller reactive field zone.
then the magnetic antenna is doomed to noise in the same sense as an
electric antenna is.

Of course I agree with you for the case the noise source extends over
large distance.

What antenna is better, you cannot say beforehand and is food for the
experimenter (as I mentioned earlier).

This topic becomes lengthy. Do you think that it will result in better
statements from other people on there websites (that was the subject
of my first contribution)? The second part was just to show that the
3% claim for a 4 m loop (circumference) at 80m isn't bad.

I have real doubts about it, so I decided to send PM to Norbert some
days ago to setup a more constructive discussion.

With kind regards,

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl