On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:56:23 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

When a noise source is about 5..10m away from an 3.6 MHz antenna, the
coupling of that noise source towards a "magnetic" loop antenna may be
different from the coupling towards an "electric" antenna, though
both antennas may produce the same far field radiation. This is not
from a textbook, but from experience (I am also working in power
electronics).

Text books would enlarge that volume to one half to several
wavelengths for the "near field." The text books would further
clarify this with math (yes, I know, professional and academic
discussion in light of this being an amateur forum is anathema) and
define the difference with the terms Fresnel diffraction (near-field)
and Fraunhofer diffraction (far-field). The operative physical length
of the antenna becomes meaningful, but this is getting ahead of what I
call the "benchmark" method below.

To give the magnetic loop aficionados the benefit of this, all local
noise within 100 feet would be susceptible to interfering and it
wouldn't be nullable (which is a characteristic only observed in the
far-field) except by polarization which is very haphazard in the
near-field. I have never seen a magnetic loop mount with the
necessary degrees of freedom to employ this method of "nulling." As
such, the vaunted characteristic is elusive and thus becomes legendary
rather than fulfilled.

However, the term "near-field" is rather vague. The more appropriate
discussion is found in "reactive near field" and "radiative near
field." The discussion of loop coupling to magnetic (while ignoring
electric) fields would suggest "reactive near field." In this regard,
the 80M volume of reactive interference is still roughly 100 feet in
all directions. The "radiative near field" would encompass a volume
out to 80 meters (roughly 250 feet). In either case, apartment living
finds no panacea in loop antennas.

There is another, non-textual (at least to the casual reader),
benchmark that such issues are measured by the physical spread of the
antenna itself (this usually attends discussion of capture area to
many's frustration). Here, I am returning to the allusion above of
Fresnel diffraction (near-field) and Fraunhofer diffraction
(far-field). The math (non-techs, turn your eyes away) is as simple
as:
2·D²/lambda

Let's work some examples from the sublime to the ridiculous on 80M.

The traditional half-wave dipole antenna that exhibits the traditional
usage for distinguishing between near and far:
2·40²/80 = 40 meters
a smaller quarter-wave dipole antenna
2·20²/80 = 10 meters
a tenth wave dipole antenna
2·8²/80 = 1.6 meters
a fortieth wave dipole antenna
2·2²/80 = 10 centimeters

Let's see where discussion follows in this regard.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC