On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:33:23 -0400, TRABEM wrote:

When you said "Well, this is a good opportunity to examine
that tumble down the slope to the Q = 2 (caused by the severe
loading of your proposed design)"...................did you mean
to say or to infer '(caused by the severe loading of your old (now
defunct) series resonant loop design"???

Yes
of course.

You have asked a number of questions outside of this old (now
defunct) design, but you haven't, as far as I can tell, formalized a
replacement.

The ancillary point that I've made is that the original could work.
However, you've never stated any operating specification to test that
against. I've offered that all components need to be scrutinized in
the face of your goal. We saw where that lead.

You've only specified your desire for High Q capacitors (properly, low
D capacitors). I offered that ESRs vary widely and could easily
derail your goal. The presence of an ESR equal to the 0.06 Ohm of the
loop is very well within being guaranteed. It still is. Reg
dismissed this as inconsequential. So be it, but being that it is
easily remedied through selection, then why toss away half your Q to
casual indifference?

What Reg actually meant, and he has a hard time with that given he can
often be found on both sides of an argument, is that such loss may not
matter. There I agree, but this does not advance the topic of High Q
Caps for VLF Loop Antenna when they can be obtained.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC