Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [loopantennas] Mobius Shielded Loop Antenna

Expand Messages
  • Steve
    ... Everett...have you identified what this noise is? Is it sky noise / atmospherics or local electrical noise? Steve WEB - The VE7SL Radio Notebook :
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      >....the Mobius loop ......I get about a 5 S unit higher signal ... and
      >about 4 to 5 S units lower noise.

      Everett...have you identified what this noise is? Is it 'sky noise /
      atmospherics' or local electrical noise?

      Steve



      WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl
    • everettsharp74
      Hi Steve, It is more local man made noise, but some of it is no doubt atmospheric noise. However, if the atmospheric noise is coming from all directions you
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Steve,
         
        It is more local man made noise, but some of it is no doubt atmospheric noise. However, if the atmospheric noise is coming from all directions you can't null it out. I am quite impressed with how well it works and there is no tuning, just give it a turn every now and then. For what ever reason, it seams to have more gain and a lower noise floor on 75 and 40 meters that a active loop the same diameter, which is using the same amplifier, but 14 gage wire rather than coax. 
         
        Everett
         
        In a message dated 8/19/2013 2:14:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ve7sl@... writes:
         

        >....the Mobius loop ......I get about a 5 S unit higher signal ... and
        >about 4 to 5 S units lower noise.

        Everett...have you identified what this noise is? Is it 'sky noise /
        atmospherics' or local electrical noise?

        Steve

        WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl

      • Andrew Ikin
        Dear Everett, Thanks for sharing your obsevations. I would suggest that the difference you are seing in loop performace comes down to how well the loops are
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          Dear Everett,

           

           

          Thanks for sharing your obsevations. I would suggest that the difference you are seing in loop performace comes down to how well the loops are matched to the ampfiliers and whether you are using a balanced amplifer to cancel out any near E field noise. All the mobius loop is doing is increasing the loops impedance. This could be have been achieved with a transformer.

           

          Some time ago I compared a Mobius loop (1m diam) to a 1m 3/4 tube loop using an ALA1530 Amplifier and a higher impedance low noise FET amplifier. What I found was; below approx. 16MHz both loop types would provide similar performance when taking into consideration the differing loop z  to amplifier input z.

           Above 16MHz the capacitance of the Mobius loop was too high and thus the gain drops off.  Where both loop types have a resonable match to the amplifier the signal and s/n are the same.

           

          If one looks at the two loop types intuatively, both have the same area, so it would be fair to say that they capture the same signal.  With the mobuis the deliverable current to the amplifier is 4 x lower because the impedance is 4 x higher. Hence this is why Pixel use a 50 ohm input z amplifier  to acheive good results compared to some designs using a near zero input impedance.  The basic fallacy with using a near zero input z amplifier is that a loop is not a low z current source, but a current source with a series reactance. It is this rising reactance verses frequency which dominates the loss in a broadband loop antenna, hence the need to provide a reasonable loop/amplifier match.

           

           

           

           

           

          73

           

          Andrew Ikin   
        • Steve
          FB Everett...I m surprised to hear that the atmospherics are lower as this noise is usually treated as a signal, unlike some forms of near-field noise. When
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            FB Everett...I'm surprised to hear that the atmospherics are lower as this
            'noise' is usually treated as a signal, unlike some forms of near-field
            noise. When I rebuilt my 10' active loop, I had consdered doing a Mobius
            strip but then talked myself out of it as I reasoned that the theoretical
            doubling of output signal voltage might cause some undesired affects on the
            preamp's front end as I live less than a mile from the 'AP' ndb on 378 KHz.
            As well, it seemed to me that by physically connecting the shield to the
            inner element of the loop, that the 'shielded' loop would simply become a
            two-turn (unshielded) loop. Your results are of particular interest and I
            may yet do some further experimenting with the next re-build should the 10
            footer eventually come down in one of our winter storms.

            If you have not seen it before, the details of my LF shielded system are
            here:

            http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl/burhans.html


            Steve / 73



            WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl
          • crabtreejr
            Hello Andy Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting. My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Andy

              Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting.

              My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the negligle radiation resistance.  For a given field strength, the voltage output is proportional to frequency.  The equivalent current source has an output which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series, inductance.

              What am I missing?

              Tnx and 73

              John  KC0G
                

              In a message dated 8/19/2013 2:55:26 PM Central Daylight Time, andrew.ikin@... writes:
              Dear Everett,

               
              Thanks for sharing your obsevations. I would suggest that the difference you are seing in loop performace comes down to how well the loops are matched to the ampfiliers and whether you are using a balanced amplifer to cancel out any near E field noise. All the mobius loop is doing is increasing the loops impedance. This could be have been achieved with a transformer.

              Some time ago I compared a Mobius loop (1m diam) to a 1m 3/4 tube loop using an ALA1530 Amplifier and a higher impedance low noise FET amplifier. What I found was; below approx. 16MHz both loop types would provide similar performance when taking into consideration the differing loop z  to amplifier input z.

              Above 16MHz the capacitance of the Mobius loop was too high and thus the gain drops off.  Where both loop types have a resonable match to the amplifier the signal and s/n are the same.

              If one looks at the two loop types intuatively, both have the same area, so it would be fair to say that they capture the same signal.  With the mobuis the deliverable current to the amplifier is 4 x lower because the impedance is 4 x higher. Hence this is why Pixel use a 50 ohm input z amplifier  to acheive good results compared to some designs using a near zero input impedance.  The basic fallacy with using a near zero input z amplifier is that a loop is not a low z current source, but a current source with a series reactance. It is this rising reactance verses frequency which dominates the loss in a broadband loop antenna, hence the need to provide a reasonable loop/amplifier match.

              73
              Andrew Ikin  
            • Chris Trask
              ... I m not surprised at the results you ve seen. With twice the output voltage and four times the terminal impedance, your improved S readings are
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                <<SNIP>>

                >
                >So my question is have you made any more experiments with the Mobuis project that is mentioned in your article?
                >

                I'm not surprised at the results you've seen. With twice the output voltage and four times the terminal impedance, your improved S readings are right on track.

                No, I haven't pursued the Mobius Shielded Loop any further. I do want to use it in an experiment for an indoor antenna with varaactor tuning and a tunnel diode negative resistance amplifier/Q-multiplier.



                Chris Trask
                N7ZWY / WDX3HLB
                Senior Member IEEE
                http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/
              • Chris Trask
                ... I was looking at loops as being voltage sources with series reactances until I came across a paper that look at them as being current sources with shunt
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  >Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is
                  >interesting.
                  >
                  >My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage
                  >source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the
                  >negligle radiation resistance. For a given field strength, the voltage output is
                  >proportional to frequency. The equivalent current source has an output
                  >which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series,
                  >inductance.
                  >
                  >What am I missing?
                  >

                  I was looking at loops as being voltage sources with series reactances until I came across a paper that look at them as being current sources with shunt reactances, and it made sense as a loop in a magnetic field generates a current to the load that is proportional to the loop diameter and the signal frequency. That ptomted me to design my wideband loop amplifier with a very low input impedance rather than trying to match the loop reactance over a wide band.


                  Chris Trask
                  N7ZWY / WDX3HLB
                  Senior Member IEEE
                  http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/
                • everettsharp74
                  Hi Andrew, Thank you for your comments and you input. I tried several different hook ups with the standard shielded loop configuration and even tried a
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Andrew,
                     
                    Thank you for your comments and you input. I tried several different hook ups with the standard shielded loop configuration and even tried a matching transformer using one of the 73 mix binocular cores, with several different ratios, but was never able to get it to work just right. I could not get the loop balanced correctly, as my 180 nulls were no where the same. Maybe I just did not come up with the correct combination.
                     
                    However, with the Mobius configuration it worked from the get go, with the M0YAF amp, of which I built 4 of them. I also tried the LZ1AQ broadband amp, but it did not work very well on any of the shielded loop configurations, but did okay on the standard 14 gage wire loop.  
                     
                    Your observation on the lower performance above about 16 MHz is very similar to what I am seeing, but as I have moved up from first, from RG58, then to my home made coax and now to the RG11, I am seeing improvement. The RG 58 has a capacitance of around 30 pf per foot, I did not measure my home made coax and the RG11 runs about 20 pf per foot, so again in your remarks on the capacitance maybe what is degrading my top end performance. 
                     
                    73 Everett
                     
                    In a message dated 8/19/2013 2:55:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, andrew.ikin@... writes:
                     

                    Dear Everett,

                    Thanks for sharing your observations. I would suggest that the difference you are seeing in loop performace comes down to how well the loops are matched to the ampfiliers and whether you are using a balanced amplifer to cancel out any near E field noise. All the mobius loop is doing is increasing the loops impedance. This could be have been achieved with a transformer.

                     

                    Some time ago I compared a Mobius loop (1m diam) to a 1m 3/4 tube loop using an ALA1530 Amplifier and a higher impedance low noise FET amplifier. What I found was; below approx. 16MHz both loop types would provide similar performance when taking into consideration the differing loop z  to amplifier input z.

                     Above 16MHz the capacitance of the Mobius loop was too high and thus the gain drops off.  Where both loop types have a resonable match to the amplifier the signal and s/n are the same.

                    If one looks at the two loop types intuatively, both have the same area, so it would be fair to say that they capture the same signal.  With the mobuis the deliverable current to the amplifier is 4 x lower because the impedance is 4 x higher. Hence this is why Pixel use a 50 ohm input z amplifier  to acheive good results compared to some designs using a near zero input impedance.  The basic fallacy with using a near zero input z amplifier is that a loop is not a low z current source, but a current source with a series reactance. It is this rising reactance verses frequency which dominates the loss in a broadband loop antenna, hence the need to provide a reasonable loop/amplifier match.

                     

                     

                    73

                    Andrew Ikin   

                  • everettsharp74
                    Hello Again Steve, Yes I did look at your site and had seen it before, that is quite a loop that you have. I also noticed all of of your projects and old
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Again Steve,
                       
                      Yes I did look at your site and had seen it before, that is quite a loop that you have. I also noticed all of of your projects and old radio/electronic collectable's, very nice. 
                       
                      I just did some rechecking on 2 local AM radio stations, using the Mobius Loop connected to the M0YAO broadband loop, using a Icom R 75 receiver. One station at 690 KHz gave a S meter reading of 20/9, I was able to null it to S9. The other station was 30/9 and I was able to null it to 10/9. So both stations were nulled by 20 S units, it does not seem correct, but that is 120 dB. The nulls were identical 180 deg from each other.
                       
                      However, as I go up in frequency the nulls become of a lesser magnitude (more sky wave and less ground wave). Also the lower noise floor is more noticeable on the lower bands. What I mean is when switching back and forth from the active 1 meter wire loop to the active 1 meter mobius loop is that I see a wider spread between the ambient noise, lower S meter readings and higher S meter readings with signal, which is easy to see on 75 meters, but much more difficult to see on MW BCB, all though I am sure it is same there also. 
                       
                      Before you make any changes try experimenting with a smaller loop, like maybe a 1 meter, to see if you see what I am seeing. I have not done the kind of comparison that Andy did, comparing it to a standard Shielded loop, as I only compared mine to a active wire loop and a tuned wire loop.
                       
                      73 Everett N8CNP  
                       
                      In a message dated 8/19/2013 4:06:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ve7sl@... writes:
                       

                      FB Everett...I'm surprised to hear that the atmospherics are lower as this
                      'noise' is usually treated as a signal, unlike some forms of near-field
                      noise. When I rebuilt my 10' active loop, I had consdered doing a Mobius
                      strip but then talked myself out of it as I reasoned that the theoretical
                      doubling of output signal voltage might cause some undesired affects on the
                      preamp's front end as I live less than a mile from the 'AP' ndb on 378 KHz.
                      As well, it seemed to me that by physically connecting the shield to the
                      inner element of the loop, that the 'shielded' loop would simply become a
                      two-turn (unshielded) loop. Your results are of particular interest and I
                      may yet do some further experimenting with the next re-build should the 10
                      footer eventually come down in one of our winter storms.

                      If you have not seen it before, the details of my LF shielded system are
                      here:

                      http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl/burhans.html

                      Steve / 73

                      WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl

                    • Steve
                      Comments all noted Everett...thanks again...BTW.. ... stations were nulled by 20 S units, it does not seem correct, but that is 120 dB. not 20 S-units but ~
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 19, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Comments all noted Everett...thanks again...BTW..

                        >The other station was 30/9 and I was able to null it to 10/9. So both
                        stations were nulled by 20 S units, it does not seem correct, but that is
                        120 dB.

                        not 20 S-units but ~ 20db

                        Steve / 73



                        WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl
                      • Andrew Ikin
                        John wrote on August 19, Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting. My understanding, is that a small loop can be
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John wrote on August 19,
                           
                          Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting.

                          My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the negligle radiation resistance.  For a given field strength, the voltage output is proportional to frequency.  The equivalent current source has an output which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series, inductance.

                          What am I missing?

                          Tnx and 73

                          John  KC0G

                           
                           

                           Hi John,

                           

                           

                          What I believe is happening; the H Field induces a current into loop, this current is not frequency related. However, as the loop has a rising  series impedance with frequency the loops terminal voltage is the product the induce current x the impedance. Hence we see that the Vout is proportional to frequency.

                           

                          This issue of the loops series reactance impeding the current is discussed in a GB patent for the Liniplex loop manufactured by Phase Track in the early nineties. I can't find my copy of this patent. A search for patents by Charles Edward Forster my find it. The Liniplex loop used multiple loops in parallel to reduce the series reactance from impeding the current to the amplifier.

                           

                          Getting back to the real issue here, we have a loop with output z that is frequency dependant, therefore optimum power transfer to the amplifier will only happen when the amplifier input z matches the loop.

                           

                           

                          Kind regards

                           

                          Andrew
                        • Andrew Ikin
                          Everett wrote on the 19 August, Hi Andrew, Thank you for your comments and you input. I tried several different hook ups with the standard shielded loop
                          Message 12 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            
                            Everett wrote on the 19 August,
                             
                             
                            Hi Andrew,
                             
                            Thank you for your comments and you input. I tried several different hook ups with the standard shielded loop configuration and even tried a matching transformer using one of the 73 mix binocular cores, with several different ratios, but was never able to get it to work just right. I could not get the loop balanced correctly, as my 180 nulls were no where the same. Maybe I just did not come up with the correct combination.
                             
                            However, with the Mobius configuration it worked from the get go, with the M0YAF amp, of which I built 4 of them. I also tried the LZ1AQ broadband amp, but it did not work very well on any of the shielded loop configurations, but did okay on the standard 14 gage wire loop.  
                             
                            Your observation on the lower performance above about 16 MHz is very similar to what I am seeing, but as I have moved up from first, from RG58, then to my home made coax and now to the RG11, I am seeing improvement. The RG 58 has a capacitance of around 30 pf per foot, I did not measure my home made coax and the RG11 runs about 20 pf per foot, so again in your remarks on the capacitance maybe what is degrading my top end performance. 
                             
                            Hello Everett,
                             
                            The LZ1AQ amp. has a very low input z. That is why it does not work with the higher z Mobius.
                             
                            73
                             
                            Andrew
                             
                             
                             
                             
                          • Hylton Thompson
                            In general, any voltage source with series impedance can be converted to an exactly equivalent current source with parallel impedance at the same frequency.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In general, any voltage source with series impedance can be converted to an exactly equivalent current source with parallel impedance at the same frequency. The only constraint is that there must be no non-linear devices such as diodes in the the circuit. See Thevenin's and Norton's theorems.
                               
                              Hylton Thompson (g6avl)
                               
                              ----- Original message -----
                              From: Andrew Ikin <andrew.ikin@...>
                              Subject: Re: [loopantennas] Mobius Shielded Loop Antenna
                              Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:57:39 +0100
                               
                               

                               

                              John wrote on August 19,
                               
                              Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting.

                              My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the negligle radiation resistance.  For a given field strength, the voltage output is proportional to frequency.  The equivalent current source has an output which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series, inductance.

                              What am I missing?

                              Tnx and 73

                              John  KC0G
                               
                               

                               Hi John,

                               

                               

                              What I believe is happening; the H Field induces a current into loop, this current is not frequency related. However, as the loop has a rising  series impedance with frequency the loops terminal voltage is the product the induce current x the impedance. Hence we see that the Vout is proportional to frequency.

                               

                              This issue of the loops series reactance impeding the current is discussed in a GB patent for the Liniplex loop manufactured by Phase Track in the early nineties. I can't find my copy of this patent. A search for patents by Charles Edward Forster my find it. The Liniplex loop used multiple loops in parallel to reduce the series reactance from impeding the current to the amplifier.

                               

                              Getting back to the real issue here, we have a loop with output z that is frequency dependant, therefore optimum power transfer to the amplifier will only happen when the amplifier input z matches the loop.

                               

                               

                              Kind regards

                               

                              Andrew

                               

                               
                            • Andrew Ikin
                              John wrote on August 19, Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting. My understanding, is that a small loop can be
                              Message 14 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment

                                John wrote on August 19,

                                 

                                Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting.

                                My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the negligle radiation resistance.  For a given field strength, the voltage output is proportional to frequency.  The equivalent current source has an output which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series, inductance.

                                What am I missing?

                                Tnx and 73

                                John  KC0G

                                 

                                 

                                 Hi John,

                                 

                                 

                                What I believe is happening; the H Field induces a current into loop, this current is not frequency related. However, as the loop has a rising  series impedance with frequency the loops terminal voltage is the product the induce current x the impedance. Hence we see that the Vout is proportional to frequency.

                                 

                                This issue of the loops series reactance impeding the current is discussed in a GB patent for the Liniplex loop manufactured by Phase Track in the early nineties. I can't find my copy of this patent. A search for patents by Charles Edward Forster my find it. The Liniplex loop used multiple loops in parallel to reduce the series reactance from impeding the current to the amplifier.

                                 

                                Getting back to the real issue here, we have a loop with output z that is frequency dependant, therefore optimum power transfer to the amplifier will only happen when the amplifier input z matches the loop.

                                 

                                 

                                Kind regards

                                 

                                Andrew

                              • Jack Smith
                                John and Andrew are both correct. If modeled as a voltage source in series with inductance, you will find the output voltage into a resistive load is
                                Message 15 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  John and Andrew are both correct.

                                  If modeled as a voltage source in series with inductance, you will find the output voltage into a resistive load is independent of frequency above a certain threshold, just as with the parallel current source model.

                                  This is because the loop voltage source EMF increases linearly with frequency at 6 dB/octave (induced voltage is proportional to rate of change of the magnetic flux, so when you differentiate the sin(wt) the flux rate of change becomes -w*cos(wt)) and voltage divider formed by the loop's inductive reactance (which doubles per octave) in series with the amplifier input resistance
                                  decreases the signal at the amplifier input at the same 6 dB/octave if the frequency is sufficiently high such that the amplifier input impedance is much less than the inductive reactance of the loop.  In other words, the 6 dB/octave rising voltage output is canceled by the -6 dB/octave voltage divider effect and the net voltage input into the loop amplifier is constant with frequency.

                                  This series model predicts the same behavior as a parallel current source, so either may be used provided you take care to get the maths correct.

                                  The simplistic -6 dB/octave LR voltage divider assumes, as mentioned earlier,  that the loop's inductive reactance is large compared with the input impedance of the amplifier.


                                  Jack K8ZOA



                                  On 8/20/2013 6:49 AM, Andrew Ikin wrote:
                                   

                                  John wrote on August 19,

                                   

                                  Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is interesting.

                                  My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the negligle radiation resistance.  For a given field strength, the voltage output is proportional to frequency.  The equivalent current source has an output which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series, inductance.

                                  What am I missing?

                                  Tnx and 73

                                  John  KC0G

                                   

                                   

                                   Hi John,

                                   

                                   

                                  What I believe is happening; the H Field induces a current into loop, this current is not frequency related. However, as the loop has a rising  series impedance with frequency the loops terminal voltage is the product the induce current x the impedance. Hence we see that the Vout is proportional to frequency.

                                   

                                  This issue of the loops series reactance impeding the current is discussed in a GB patent for the Liniplex loop manufactured by Phase Track in the early nineties. I can't find my copy of this patent. A search for patents by Charles Edward Forster my find it. The Liniplex loop used multiple loops in parallel to reduce the series reactance from impeding the current to the amplifier.

                                   

                                  Getting back to the real issue here, we have a loop with output z that is frequency dependant, therefore optimum power transfer to the amplifier will only happen when the amplifier input z matches the loop.

                                   

                                   

                                  Kind regards

                                   

                                  Andrew

                                  _

                                • crabtreejr
                                  Hello Chris et al The idea of using a low impedance amplifier for a loop antenna is not new. I have just dug out my copy of H.F. active antenna performance
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello Chris et al

                                    The idea of using a low impedance amplifier for a loop antenna is not new.  I have just dug out my copy of "H.F. active antenna performance requirements and realization",  by B.M. Sosin, published in "Communication and Broadcasting", Summer 1976.  Sosin was at one time Chief Scientist at one of the Marconi companies in the UK. 

                                    Sosin discusses how a low-impedance amplifier gives near optimal amplification over the H.F. frequencies.  His assumptions, ie 10dB receiver noise figure, 3 dB noise degradation, low noise areas at quiet times, lead to an antenna factor of -2dB, ie a field strength of 0.8V/m is required for 1 Volt output into 50 ohms.

                                    Sosin goes on to say that only the very best receiving systems would be affected by the noise degradation, and then by a small amount.  In those cases the amplifier gain could be increased by 3 to 8 dB, or an additional low noise, low intermodulation products used. 

                                    Sosin references a paper by Callendar on wideband loop arrays from 1972. 

                                    73 John  KC0G


                                    In a message dated 8/19/2013 4:59:23 PM Central Daylight Time, christrask@... writes:
                                    >
                                    >Your comment that the loop is a current source with a series reactance is
                                    >interesting.
                                    >
                                    >My understanding, is that a small loop can be considered as a voltage
                                    >source in series with the inductance of the loop, the ohmic losses, and the
                                    >negligle radiation resistance. For a given field strength, the voltage output is
                                    >proportional to frequency. The equivalent current source has an output
                                    >which is proportional to field strength only, and has a shunt, not series,
                                    >inductance.
                                    >
                                    >What am I missing?
                                    >

                                    I was looking at loops as being voltage sources with series reactances until I came across a paper that look at them as being current sources with shunt reactances, and it made sense as a loop in a magnetic field generates a current to the load that is proportional to the loop diameter and the signal frequency. That ptomted me to design my wideband loop amplifier with a very low input impedance rather than trying to match the loop reactance over a wide band.

                                    Chris Trask
                                    N7ZWY / WDX3HLB
                                    Senior Member IEEE
                                    http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/

                                  • Chris Trask
                                    ... Could you scan that and add it to the files section? Chris
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >
                                      >Hello Chris et al
                                      >
                                      >The idea of using a low impedance amplifier for a loop antenna is not new.
                                      >I have just dug out my copy of "H.F. active antenna performance
                                      >requirements and realization", by B.M. Sosin, published in "Communication and
                                      >Broadcasting", Summer 1976. Sosin was at one time Chief Scientist at one of the
                                      >Marconi companies in the UK.
                                      >

                                      Could you scan that and add it to the files section?


                                      Chris
                                    • Andrew Ikin
                                      John, Ref, to my earlier post concerning the GB Patent for the Liniplex loop. The UK Patent Application no. is GB 2 235 337 A Inventor is Edward Charles
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Aug 20, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        John,

                                         

                                        Ref, to my earlier post concerning the GB Patent for the  Liniplex loop. The UK Patent Application no. is GB 2 235 337 A  Inventor is Edward Charles Forster. It discusses the problem of the loops series inductance limiting the current to load. In the case of this patent the load is a common base amplifier.
                                         
                                        73
                                         
                                        Andrew
                                         
                                      • hmaxim2000us
                                        Hello Group I just wanted to update you on the Mobius loop as described by Everett N8CNP . I finally got my RG/11 although it turned out to be a cable with
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 1, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hello Group
                                          I just wanted to update you on the Mobius loop as described by Everett N8CNP . I finally got my RG/11 although it turned out to be a cable with aluminum shielding and some kind of lubricant between the shield and the jacket…a real mess to work with. I used it anyway.
                                          So I find that it performs much better than a single turn loop. In fact it equals or outperforms my reference antenna which is an 88 foot twinlead fed inverted Vee at 45 feet. But only in the evening. During the day the loop is almost useless. Have not figured that out yet.
                                          One other thing I was hoping you might be able answer. The loop performance drops off considerably by the time I get to 40 meters. On 30 meters it is nearly deaf.
                                          I am thinking there is a problem with my amp. Do you think T1 should be adjusted? Maybe I am not coupling enough high frequency voltage from T1? I was thinking maybe 15 turns is too much? Also, can I use a F T50 core, and if so, how would this effect the number of turns?
                                          What do you think about the transistors? I get superb performance from 100 khz up to around 4 or 5 Mhz, but after that it really takes a dive. I have a pair of 2n5109's but have not installed them yet. Do you think it would be better than the 2n3904's I use now?
                                          Jim
                                          K2TL



                                          --- In loopantennas@yahoogroups.com, everettsharp@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Hi Andrew,
                                          >
                                          > Thank you for your comments and you input. I tried several different hook
                                          > ups with the standard shielded loop configuration and even tried a matching
                                          > transformer using one of the 73 mix binocular cores, with several different
                                          > ratios, but was never able to get it to work just right. I could not get
                                          > the loop balanced correctly, as my 180 nulls were no where the same. Maybe
                                          > I just did not come up with the correct combination.
                                          >
                                          > However, with the Mobius configuration it worked from the get go, with the
                                          > M0YAF amp, of which I built 4 of them. I also tried the LZ1AQ broadband
                                          > amp, but it did not work very well on any of the shielded loop configurations,
                                          > but did okay on the standard 14 gage wire loop.
                                          >
                                          > Your observation on the lower performance above about 16 MHz is very
                                          > similar to what I am seeing, but as I have moved up from first, from RG58, then
                                          > to my home made coax and now to the RG11, I am seeing improvement. The RG 58
                                          > has a capacitance of around 30 pf per foot, I did not measure my home made
                                          > coax and the RG11 runs about 20 pf per foot, so again in your remarks on
                                          > the capacitance maybe what is degrading my top end performance.
                                          >
                                          > 73 Everett
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > In a message dated 8/19/2013 2:55:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                                          > andrew.ikin@... writes:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Dear Everett,
                                          > Thanks for sharing your observations. I would suggest that the difference
                                          > you are seeing in loop performace comes down to how well the loops are
                                          > matched to the ampfiliers and whether you are using a balanced amplifer to
                                          > cancel out any near E field noise. All the mobius loop is doing is increasing
                                          > the loops impedance. This could be have been achieved with a transformer.
                                          > Some time ago I compared a Mobius loop (1m diam) to a 1m 3/4 tube loop
                                          > using an ALA1530 Amplifier and a higher impedance low noise FET amplifier.
                                          > What I found was; below approx. 16MHz both loop types would provide similar
                                          > performance when taking into consideration the differing loop z to amplifier
                                          > input z.
                                          > Above 16MHz the capacitance of the Mobius loop was too high and thus the
                                          > gain drops off. Where both loop types have a resonable match to the
                                          > amplifier the signal and s/n are the same.
                                          > If one looks at the two loop types intuatively, both have the same area,
                                          > so it would be fair to say that they capture the same signal. With the
                                          > mobuis the deliverable current to the amplifier is 4 x lower because the
                                          > impedance is 4 x higher. Hence this is why Pixel use a 50 ohm input z amplifier
                                          > to acheive good results compared to some designs using a near zero input
                                          > impedance. The basic fallacy with using a near zero input z amplifier is
                                          > that a loop is not a low z current source, but a current source with a series
                                          > reactance. It is this rising reactance verses frequency which dominates
                                          > the loss in a broadband loop antenna, hence the need to provide a reasonable
                                          > loop/amplifier match.
                                          > 73
                                          > Andrew Ikin
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.