To: | "David Robbins" <k1ttt@arrl.net>, <Rfi@contesting.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [RFI] Shielded vs unshielded loops. |
From: | "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006@frontier.com> |
Reply-to: | kgordon2006@frontier.com |
Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:20:42 -0700 |
List-post: | <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com> |
On 28 Mar 2014 at 11:39, David Robbins wrote: > Not good for long distance, but gives good nulls. That was the info I was wanting: "good nulls". Thanks. >From my reading on loops over the years I had "remembered" that a shielded loop was necessary for good nulls. Glad to know my memory is faulty. A shielded loop would be easy to make out of coax, but there is the interface from the balanced loop to the unbalanced input to the receiver to consider. Ken W7EKB _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [RFI] Petition to change the way RFI complaints are dealt with, W0MU Mike Fatchett |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [RFI] Shielded vs unshielded loops., Kenneth G. Gordon |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFI] Shielded vs unshielded loops., David Robbins |
Next by Thread: | Re: [RFI] Shielded vs unshielded loops., Kenneth G. Gordon |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |