Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+40\s+foot\s+diameter\s+shielded\s+loop\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+40\s+foot\s+diameter\s+shielded\s+loop\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 40 foot diameter shielded loop (score: 1): Author: ford@cmgate.com (Ford Peterson); Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:34:29 -0500; Ok, 40 foot circumference is bigger than most shielded loop designs out there. Generally, bigger is better when it comes to loops -- or so I figured. I have a 41.5 foot circumference loop made from R; /archives//html/Topband/2000-09/msg00111.html (8,142 bytes)
2. Topband: 40 foot diameter shielded loop (score: 1): Author: i4jmy@iol.it (Maurizio Panicara); Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:49:50 +0200; A 40 ft loop (shielded or not) is too big, likewise the capacitance due to RG213. Try with much smaller diameters and possibly using cables with less capacitance per meter. A magnetical loop whose ci; /archives//html/Topband/2000-09/msg00112.html (7,135 bytes)
3. Topband: 40 foot diameter shielded loop (score: 1): Author: w8ji@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:56:17 -0400; Hi Ford, This topic come up from time to time. There is a lot of misinformation circulated about loops. Newer editions of Reference Data for Radio Engineers has a somewhat plain text explanation of s; /archives//html/Topband/2000-09/msg00117.html (11,185 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]