Telamon wrote in message

Well, OK there is just as much crap here but the posts in RRS do not
usually turn into a "thesis" or degenerate into soap operatic techno
babble with the usual cast of characters.

Where was the technobabble? It made sense to me...

Generally, the air of pretense does not exist in RRS, as people here do
not claim to be other than nonprofessional on the subject.

Well, some on rraa *are* professionals. But again, many are not. I am
not. My work has nothing at all to do with radio, antennas...

Oh yeah and you are wrong about the shielded loop.

Oh yeah? Prove it. I've built both, and tested both, and I couldn't
tell a lick of difference. I have also used both shielded loops and
plain wire loops for the "coupling" loop that feeds a regular wire
loop. Again, no difference in noise pickup.
None whatsoever. If I am wrong, why don't I see the results? I'm not
just barking at the moon. I've built and compared both types just to
test this exact theory. Both of my present loops are now plain wire.
Don't you think that if there were really an advantage to a shielded
loop, I would be using them? My mama didn't raise a total fool. If I
see something that works according to common lore, I'll say so. If it
doesn't , I'll say that too...So far, I haven't seen it...
It's still my opinion that the shielded loops *do* help ensure balance
in feeding, but as far as a magical "anti noise" property, I don't see
it. If you feed the plain wire loop in a manner that also ensures the
same balance, both antennas will respond to any noise in the same
manner. You can disagree, which is fine, but until I see proof of this
magical anti noise property in real life, I will continue to claim the
*lower noise with a shielded loop theory* is a bunch of malarky... MK