Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
"Brian Howie" wrote in message ... I've a 5 foot Octagonal loop for MF. The shield is copper water pipe, with a gap , 7 turns inside plus a coupling winding. It does a good job eliminating local noise (mostly ASDL hash from the phone lines) compared with a vertical. However the capacitance between the shield and turns seems to load it quite a bit meaning I can't get the tuning range I'd like. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Hi My own experience is that ,at least for receive, multi turn loops are useless. Instead you can use a single turn one with a good coil in serial. The tuning range for a given variable capacitor is much greater especially if ,at low frequency, the coil is using ferrite . Switching the coil can increase the tuning range easily. The coil, with a secondary winding,is also very useful to adjust the coupling to the receiver. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
In message , bilou
writes "Brian Howie" wrote in message ... I've a 5 foot Octagonal loop for MF. The shield is copper water pipe, with a gap , 7 turns inside plus a coupling winding. It does a good job eliminating local noise (mostly ASDL hash from the phone lines) compared with a vertical. However the capacitance between the shield and turns seems to load it quite a bit meaning I can't get the tuning range I'd like. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Hi My own experience is that ,at least for receive, multi turn loops are useless. Instead you can use a single turn one with a good coil in serial. The tuning range for a given variable capacitor is much greater especially if ,at low frequency, the coil is using ferrite . Switching the coil can increase the tuning range easily. The coil, with a secondary winding,is also very useful to adjust the coupling to the receiver. I'd have thought I'd get a better signal from more turns, but maybe better coupling and a higher Q from your suggestion would do the same. Brian -- Brian Howie |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , bilou writes "Brian Howie" wrote in message ... I've a 5 foot Octagonal loop for MF. The shield is copper water pipe, with a gap , 7 turns inside plus a coupling winding. It does a good job eliminating local noise (mostly ASDL hash from the phone lines) compared with a vertical. However the capacitance between the shield and turns seems to load it quite a bit meaning I can't get the tuning range I'd like. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Hi My own experience is that ,at least for receive, multi turn loops are useless. Instead you can use a single turn one with a good coil in serial. The tuning range for a given variable capacitor is much greater especially if ,at low frequency, the coil is using ferrite . Switching the coil can increase the tuning range easily. The coil, with a secondary winding,is also very useful to adjust the coupling to the receiver. I'd have thought I'd get a better signal from more turns, but maybe better coupling and a higher Q from your suggestion would do the same. I can't imagine why more turns won't help a receiving loop. I guess it depends on what is limiting reception. Adding a coil may improve the Q or it make make it worse depending on the Q of the coil. More turns won't help the Q of a receiving loop, other than reducing the significance of the resistance of connections and other components. More turns *will* increase the signal strength. How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. -- Rick |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
"rickman" wrote in message ... On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. In a multiturn loop you get huge capacitance between turns. For a given variable capacitor it appears in parallel. The Q of that big coil might be higher but as you need to add fixed capacitors to the variable one to get useful tuning range you loose almost what you gain. I saw descriptions using a 128 pairs telephone cable and spending several days to wire it as a 256 turns loop. A bad idea IMHO. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
On 10/19/2015 3:50 PM, bilou wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. In a multiturn loop you get huge capacitance between turns. For a given variable capacitor it appears in parallel. The Q of that big coil might be higher but as you need to add fixed capacitors to the variable one to get useful tuning range you loose almost what you gain. I sort of lost the thought here. If you up the inductance of the loop, it lowers the required tuning capacitance, so why would fixed capacitors be needed? Are you saying the parasitic capacitance of the loop is enough to significantly reduce the tuning range of the variable cap? Maybe, but there are construction methods that minimize the parasitic capacitance of multi-turn loops. Wide spacing is important. I've seen spiral loops wound on wooden frames that look like God's Eyes, very attractive. I saw descriptions using a 128 pairs telephone cable and spending several days to wire it as a 256 turns loop. A bad idea IMHO. I'm not sure what problem you would be trying to solve by using a 256 turn loop. There are middle grounds... -- Rick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
On 10/19/2015 10:53 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:50 PM, bilou wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. In a multiturn loop you get huge capacitance between turns. For a given variable capacitor it appears in parallel. The Q of that big coil might be higher but as you need to add fixed capacitors to the variable one to get useful tuning range you loose almost what you gain. I sort of lost the thought here. If you up the inductance of the loop, it lowers the required tuning capacitance, so why would fixed capacitors be needed? Are you saying the parasitic capacitance of the loop is enough to significantly reduce the tuning range of the variable cap? Maybe, but there are construction methods that minimize the parasitic capacitance of multi-turn loops. Wide spacing is important. I've seen spiral loops wound on wooden frames that look like God's Eyes, very attractive. I saw descriptions using a 128 pairs telephone cable and spending several days to wire it as a 256 turns loop. A bad idea IMHO. I'm not sure what problem you would be trying to solve by using a 256 turn loop. There are middle grounds... Often a 60kHz WWVB time receiver. Mikek |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
On 10/20/2015 10:44 AM, amdx wrote:
On 10/19/2015 10:53 PM, rickman wrote: On 10/19/2015 3:50 PM, bilou wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. In a multiturn loop you get huge capacitance between turns. For a given variable capacitor it appears in parallel. The Q of that big coil might be higher but as you need to add fixed capacitors to the variable one to get useful tuning range you loose almost what you gain. I sort of lost the thought here. If you up the inductance of the loop, it lowers the required tuning capacitance, so why would fixed capacitors be needed? Are you saying the parasitic capacitance of the loop is enough to significantly reduce the tuning range of the variable cap? Maybe, but there are construction methods that minimize the parasitic capacitance of multi-turn loops. Wide spacing is important. I've seen spiral loops wound on wooden frames that look like God's Eyes, very attractive. I saw descriptions using a 128 pairs telephone cable and spending several days to wire it as a 256 turns loop. A bad idea IMHO. I'm not sure what problem you would be trying to solve by using a 256 turn loop. There are middle grounds... Often a 60kHz WWVB time receiver. So why would that be a "bad idea"? -- Rick |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
In message , rickman
writes On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: In message , bilou writes "Brian Howie" wrote in message ... I've a 5 foot Octagonal loop for MF. The shield is copper water pipe, with a gap , 7 turns inside plus a coupling winding. It does a good job eliminating local noise (mostly ASDL hash from the phone lines) compared with a vertical. However the capacitance between the shield and turns seems to load it quite a bit meaning I can't get the tuning range I'd like. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Hi My own experience is that ,at least for receive, multi turn loops are useless. Instead you can use a single turn one with a good coil in serial. The tuning range for a given variable capacitor is much greater especially if ,at low frequency, the coil is using ferrite . Switching the coil can increase the tuning range easily. The coil, with a secondary winding,is also very useful to adjust the coupling to the receiver. I'd have thought I'd get a better signal from more turns, but maybe better coupling and a higher Q from your suggestion would do the same. I can't imagine why more turns won't help a receiving loop. I guess it depends on what is limiting reception. Adding a coil may improve the Q or it make make it worse depending on the Q of the coil. More turns won't help the Q of a receiving loop, other than reducing the significance of the resistance of connections and other components. More turns *will* increase the signal strength. How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. The capacitance of the loop to the screen meant that at the minimum variable C setting ,I couldn't get the maximum frequency of about 500KHz I wanted, so I had to take turns off. I now need more parallel C to tune the look down to 136KHz. Brian -- Brian Howie |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
On 10/21/2015 2:18 AM, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , rickman writes On 10/19/2015 3:34 AM, Brian Howie wrote: In message , bilou writes "Brian Howie" wrote in message ... I've a 5 foot Octagonal loop for MF. The shield is copper water pipe, with a gap , 7 turns inside plus a coupling winding. It does a good job eliminating local noise (mostly ASDL hash from the phone lines) compared with a vertical. However the capacitance between the shield and turns seems to load it quite a bit meaning I can't get the tuning range I'd like. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Hi My own experience is that ,at least for receive, multi turn loops are useless. Instead you can use a single turn one with a good coil in serial. The tuning range for a given variable capacitor is much greater especially if ,at low frequency, the coil is using ferrite . Switching the coil can increase the tuning range easily. The coil, with a secondary winding,is also very useful to adjust the coupling to the receiver. I'd have thought I'd get a better signal from more turns, but maybe better coupling and a higher Q from your suggestion would do the same. I can't imagine why more turns won't help a receiving loop. I guess it depends on what is limiting reception. Adding a coil may improve the Q or it make make it worse depending on the Q of the coil. More turns won't help the Q of a receiving loop, other than reducing the significance of the resistance of connections and other components. More turns *will* increase the signal strength. How does the coil affect the tuning range of the cap? A cap is limited by the ratio of the minimum to maximum capacitance. The ratio of frequency is limited to the same ratio. The capacitance of the loop to the screen meant that at the minimum variable C setting ,I couldn't get the maximum frequency of about 500KHz I wanted, so I had to take turns off. I now need more parallel C to tune the look down to 136KHz. Wow, that loop must have a *lot* of capacitance. Is there a way to space the conductors away from the copper tubing in the run? I'm curious why you would use copper pipe for the shield. Because it provides both shield and support? I guess there are a million ways to build a shielded loop. I like the idea of using coax, but I don't know if that also has serious limitations from the capacitance between loop conductor and shield. -- Rick |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Magnetic Loops
In message , rickman
writes The capacitance of the loop to the screen meant that at the minimum variable C setting ,I couldn't get the maximum frequency of about 500KHz I wanted, so I had to take turns off. I now need more parallel C to tune the look down to 136KHz. Wow, that loop must have a *lot* of capacitance. Is there a way to space the conductors away from the copper tubing in the run? Not easy I'm curious why you would use copper pipe for the shield. Because it provides both shield and support? I guess there are a million ways to build a shielded loop. I like the idea of using coax, but I don't know if that also has serious limitations from the capacitance between loop conductor and shield. It seemed a good idea at the time. The original design used plastic pipe covered with tin-foil ,but I wanted something that would survive a Scottish winter outdoors. PVC 4-7 Loop Antenna Al Burzynski KA5JGV ( it's on the NDB yahoo group) it used 12 turns. I think the use of plastic pipe and external tinfoil reduces the C. My loop does work quite well, and has survived outdoors but I think it could be improved Brian -- Brian Howie |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
multi-turn magnetic loops | Antenna | |||
To RHF, et al. Re Loops | Shortwave | |||
Magnetic Loops | Antenna | |||
Magnetic Loops and RF Exposure | Antenna | |||
array of magnetic loops? | Antenna |