Hi Jim
Have read that article many times a good while ago whilst designing my big 160m loops, ( along with all of Leigh¡¯s papers etc.)
As mentioned designed with Leigh Turner, whom incidentally didn¡¯t use mag loops..he used verticals for hf ( on his tin roof) and inverted L for 160m.. that kina says something?
Please note i am not saying mag loops are rubbish, far from it! My big loop was all I could use for 160/80 other than a truly inefficient tiny vertical with no ground. It allowed me too work the world on 80 ssb and Usa Canada ssb on 160m, this would have been impossible on any other antenna I could erect at my tiny qth in east London.
However I did have a inverted V fan dipole up at circa 10m. This covered 40( poorly as dog legged) and well from 20-10m
With the great results I had with the 160/80 I made a 20/10 version ( 1m dia made of rolled 2 inch dia copper pipe with vac cap inserted in ends, the only thing i could have done to make it more efficient was to silver plate it..)
It was 12db down dx gnd wave etc to the dipoles.
Also now I live in Devon, rf quiet, much more land I have rebuilt the big 160/80 loop and reinstalled it to compare against my main antennas. ( it sits over gnd radials)
My main tx antennas for 160/80 are Marconi T against 1500m of radials.
The T is always 12db sometimes 18db up on the loop.
I could make my 160/80 loop more efficient but by then it will be traditional antenna size, which totally defeats the point.
These are my findings, I must point out I have never cut corners in cost or engineering ( even the vac cap boxes were teflon.) Its just they are not as good as a full size traditional antenna thats well made..ie if a vertical it MUST have a good radial field, if a dipole it MUST be at 1/2wave high etc.
Best regards Simon
Ps. We better change direction of thread before we get told to go to mag loop group.
