> My comment about the loop was not about the QST
> article, but rather about a disagreement primarily
> between Professor Mike Underhill, G3LHZ, of the
> University of Surrey, and John Belrose, VE2CV, over
> the efficiencies to be expected from small loops. Both
> sides have produced a lot of mathematics to prove
> their cases, which are however incompatible. I rather
> think that VE2CV is (more) right, but so far as I know
> neither side has conceded.
I wonder what they each concluded Roger?
I measured the MFJ loop antenna (since I helped with that
design).
As I recall it was about 60% efficiency on 28 MHz (with
3-foot diameter) and was darned near the best that could be
done. It was definitely better than a competing loop the
same size that used a flat conductor.
By the way.... the guy who "invented" the E-H antenna (an
off-shoot of the CFA antenna) claimed to have invented,
designed, or worked on the MFJ loop and MFJ Antenna Analyzer
yet he had absolutely nothing to do with either. I would
know that since I worked on both. Shows you the mindset of
these magical fantasy antenna people. They fool themselves
into not only thinking they invented something revolutionary
with sonmething that doesn't work, they even invent a
history working on things that do work that they had no part
of doing!!!
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|