A 1 wavelength loop has a pattern nearly identical to a half wave
dipole-
i.e. figure 8, slightly less gain than the dipole, and narrower
bandwidth.

At other lengths, the loop, like a center fed wire, will devleop
multiple
nulls. Of course, like the dipole at low heights, the nulls tend to
fill in.

IMHO, I fail to understand the fascination with the loop configuration.
If
it is a "quieter" antenna than a dipole ( and I can see no reason for
this
other than the idea that it is a DC short) then a dipole could be made
equally quiet by placing a suitable choke across the center insulator.

Take off angle is identical to a dipole at the same height.
Dale W4OP
.................................................. ...............................

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this one..
And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than a dipole,
*except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no corona, or
static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was the
corona
problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at that station.
Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in itself.
Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he comes up
with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL antenna
handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you astray...
MK

In article TkAnf.6139$Jz6.1420@trnddc06,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:


.................................................. ............................
..

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this one..
And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than a dipole,
*except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no corona, or
static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was the
corona
problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at that station.
Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in itself.
Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he comes up
with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL antenna
handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you astray...
MK

I agree totally. The W8JI link is very revealing of what I see daily here. I
continually compare my 7' shielded loop w/ BB preamp to my 140' dipole. Even
on 160M where the dipole is highly reactive (thus incurring some additional
feedline loss) the dipole beats the shielded loop almost 100% of the time.
To its credit, the dipole is close to 150' above the lake, thus ensuring
fairly low takeoff angles down to perhaps 3 MHz or so.

Where the loop comes into its own is below 500KHz- the deep nulls can be
placed on a noisy transformer (?) across the lake and used to reduce that
noise source. With that said, the 140' dipole would not be expected to
perform well at LF.

If the loop is significantly closer to the ground than the dipole then
it is an unfair comparison. Antenna height is a large parameter to beat
with another antenna.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article TkAnf.6139$Jz6.1420@trnddc06,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:


.................................................. ............................
..

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this one..
And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than a dipole,
*except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no corona, or
static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was the
corona
problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at that station.
Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in itself.
Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he comes up
with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL antenna
handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you astray...
MK

I agree totally. The W8JI link is very revealing of what I see daily
here. I
continually compare my 7' shielded loop w/ BB preamp to my 140' dipole.
Even
on 160M where the dipole is highly reactive (thus incurring some
additional
feedline loss) the dipole beats the shielded loop almost 100% of the
time.
To its credit, the dipole is close to 150' above the lake, thus ensuring
fairly low takeoff angles down to perhaps 3 MHz or so.

Where the loop comes into its own is below 500KHz- the deep nulls can be
placed on a noisy transformer (?) across the lake and used to reduce that
noise source. With that said, the 140' dipole would not be expected to
perform well at LF.

If the loop is significantly closer to the ground than the dipole then
it is an unfair comparison. Antenna height is a large parameter to beat
with another antenna.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The loop is vertically polarized- so takeoff angle is not effected by height
above ground.
In addition, I'm on a mountain top some 100' above a large lake.
Dale W4OP

In article ExZnf.16498$OK6.110@trnddc03,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article TkAnf.6139$Jz6.1420@trnddc06, "Dale Parfitt"
wrote:


.................................................. .................
........ ... ..

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this
one.. And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than
a dipole, *except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no
corona, or static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And
you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was
the corona problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at
that station. Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in
itself. Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he
comes up with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL
antenna handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you
astray... MK

I agree totally. The W8JI link is very revealing of what I see
daily here. I continually compare my 7' shielded loop w/ BB preamp
to my 140' dipole. Even on 160M where the dipole is highly
reactive (thus incurring some additional feedline loss) the dipole
beats the shielded loop almost 100% of the time. To its credit,
the dipole is close to 150' above the lake, thus ensuring fairly
low takeoff angles down to perhaps 3 MHz or so.

Where the loop comes into its own is below 500KHz- the deep nulls
can be placed on a noisy transformer (?) across the lake and used
to reduce that noise source. With that said, the 140' dipole would
not be expected to perform well at LF.

If the loop is significantly closer to the ground than the dipole
then it is an unfair comparison. Antenna height is a large
parameter to beat with another antenna.


The loop is vertically polarized- so takeoff angle is not effected by
height above ground. In addition, I'm on a mountain top some 100'
above a large lake.

How close to the ground is the loop?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ExZnf.16498$OK6.110@trnddc03,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article TkAnf.6139$Jz6.1420@trnddc06, "Dale Parfitt"
wrote:


.................................................. .................
........ ... ..

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this
one.. And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than
a dipole, *except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no
corona, or static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And
you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was
the corona problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at
that station. Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in
itself. Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he
comes up with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL
antenna handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you
astray... MK

I agree totally. The W8JI link is very revealing of what I see
daily here. I continually compare my 7' shielded loop w/ BB preamp
to my 140' dipole. Even on 160M where the dipole is highly
reactive (thus incurring some additional feedline loss) the dipole
beats the shielded loop almost 100% of the time. To its credit,
the dipole is close to 150' above the lake, thus ensuring fairly
low takeoff angles down to perhaps 3 MHz or so.

Where the loop comes into its own is below 500KHz- the deep nulls
can be placed on a noisy transformer (?) across the lake and used
to reduce that noise source. With that said, the 140' dipole would
not be expected to perform well at LF.

If the loop is significantly closer to the ground than the dipole
then it is an unfair comparison. Antenna height is a large
parameter to beat with another antenna.


The loop is vertically polarized- so takeoff angle is not effected by
height above ground. In addition, I'm on a mountain top some 100'
above a large lake.

How close to the ground is the loop?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
The loop is on a short tower at 20'- vertically polarized. At far field
distances, it's effectively 100' or so.

In article 910of.17564$hB6.7325@trnddc05,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ExZnf.16498$OK6.110@trnddc03,
"Dale Parfitt" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article TkAnf.6139$Jz6.1420@trnddc06, "Dale Parfitt"
wrote:


.................................................. .................
........ ... ..

I fully agree...Note the post I just made, before I read this
one.. And a loop is most certainly *not* a quieter antenna than
a dipole, *except* in cases of corona problems. If there is no
corona, or static buildup, there is no advantage at all. And
you would need to be

in the mountains like HCJB to really see the advantage. It was
the corona problems at HCJB which led to the use of the loops at
that station. Had nothing to do with the antenna performance in
itself. Like I've said, RHF is an enthuthiastic sort, but he
comes up with some hokey ideas about antenna theory at times.
RHF, you need to invest in some good antenna books. IE: ARRL
antenna handbook, etc.. Your "intuition" is leading you
astray... MK

I agree totally. The W8JI link is very revealing of what I see
daily here. I continually compare my 7' shielded loop w/ BB preamp
to my 140' dipole. Even on 160M where the dipole is highly
reactive (thus incurring some additional feedline loss) the dipole
beats the shielded loop almost 100% of the time. To its credit,
the dipole is close to 150' above the lake, thus ensuring fairly
low takeoff angles down to perhaps 3 MHz or so.

Where the loop comes into its own is below 500KHz- the deep nulls
can be placed on a noisy transformer (?) across the lake and used
to reduce that noise source. With that said, the 140' dipole would
not be expected to perform well at LF.

If the loop is significantly closer to the ground than the dipole
then it is an unfair comparison. Antenna height is a large
parameter to beat with another antenna.


The loop is vertically polarized- so takeoff angle is not effected by
height above ground. In addition, I'm on a mountain top some 100'
above a large lake.

How close to the ground is the loop?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
The loop is on a short tower at 20'- vertically polarized. At far field
distances, it's effectively 100' or so.

I have no explanation why the loop is doing worse for you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California