开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育

Experimenting with Loop Antennas


Roland
 

Hi, I am a new member of this group. Callsign HB9VQQ.
?
I have been experimenting with Loop antennas for some time. I have been using a Wlelgood 3.1 loop with a diameter of 1m (single loop) for many years. When I came across the Mag-Loop calculator, I was curious to see if I could improve my RX with a new design. So I came up with a new design with the main focus of reducing inductance and increasing conductor area.
?
Image
?
I finished building the dual parallel loop yesterday and put it in operation. I am using a Wellgood 4.1 Amp. Wired like this. Should I cross the connections?
?
Image
?
Image
?
?
So which of the two is better? I use WSPR to compare the decoding performance with my “old” Wellgood loop with 2 RX-888 Mk2 and wsprdaemon. This allows simultaneous WSPR decoding on multiple bands. In my case from 2200 - 40m band (bands of interest).
?
This is my test setup to compare the performance
?
?
?
The results can be seen here (still running at the time of this writing). I am not overly happy with the results, especially with the DX Spots (Distance > 3000km) on 40m.
?
I am not sure if my 2 parallel loop design is a good one, maybe 2 crossed parallel loops in the same plane (LZ1AQ) would be better. Also, I am not sure if the Wellgood Amp is well suited for this setup.
?
73
Roland
?


 

Roland:
You've opened up a very large can of enigma. We made many tests with multiple loops some years ago. Not long into the experiments we realized how complex the study would be. Considering all the factors of wavelength spacing, phase mixing, natural and harmonic resonances, azimuth lobes and nulls, self-resonances, etc. If I can find the file, I'll post some scans on the group's files section. A good place to start was some of the formulas and Theory of Ops found in the ARRL Antenna book. It's a great reference, especially in not repeating some of the mistakes of others.
We standardized on the Pixel Pro for the twin loops (Receiving only). Our first tests were using AM B'cast stations with known signal strength (from an omni vertical pole 62 ft tall and bottom fed). That remained our baseline standard for stations all around us.
I can't give you any real tech help since so much results from all the iterations. I'd suggest you make the boom adjustable for loop spacing, a phase reversal switch and an adjustable combiner to mix and match the signal levels between A and B.

The humor of all this cut-and-try activity was the customer ended up deciding on a loop of our design (30kHz-7MHz) which was just a single turn, 1 meter dia, feeding a ferrite balun (49:1) to match the loops reactance as it varies with frequency. We finally decided to not use a differential preamp, but went into the balun balanced and grounded one leg of the high side (output) and fed the preamp as single-ended. The preamp's output was an emitter follower for 52 Ohms.

So, that's a lot of words with no specific help, but I hope it helps you sort out all the possibilities. Stay encouraged to experiment.

Bob, N1KPR
AmComm/Dynametrics


  • Youtube: N1KPR
  • Youtube: Ham Radio Doctor

Engineering, where enigma meets paradox


On Monday, January 20, 2025 at 09:42:54 AM EST, Roland via groups.io <roland@...> wrote:


Hi, I am a new member of this group. Callsign HB9VQQ.
?
I have been experimenting with Loop antennas for some time. I have been using a Wlelgood 3.1 loop with a diameter of 1m (single loop) for many years. When I came across the Mag-Loop calculator, I was curious to see if I could improve my RX with a new design. So I came up with a new design with the main focus of reducing inductance and increasing conductor area.
?
Image
?
I finished building the dual parallel loop yesterday and put it in operation. I am using a Wellgood 4.1 Amp. Wired like this. Should I cross the connections?
?
Image
?
Image
?
?
So which of the two is better? I use WSPR to compare the decoding performance with my “old” Wellgood loop with 2 RX-888 Mk2 and wsprdaemon. This allows simultaneous WSPR decoding on multiple bands. In my case from 2200 - 40m band (bands of interest).
?
This is my test setup to compare the performance
?
?
?
The results can be seen here (still running at the time of this writing). I am not overly happy with the results, especially with the DX Spots (Distance > 3000km) on 40m.
?
I am not sure if my 2 parallel loop design is a good one, maybe 2 crossed parallel loops in the same plane (LZ1AQ) would be better. Also, I am not sure if the Wellgood Amp is well suited for this setup.
?
73
Roland
?

Virus-free.


Roland
 

For the WSPR Results:
?
HB9VQQ/RW3 = Single Loop
HB9VQQ/RW4 = Dual Parallel Loop


 

A cross connected pair of loops, or 4 cross connected loops as described by LZ1AQ, is likely to produce better results, but you should have noticed some improvement with the parallel loops relative to a single loop.
?
As it is configured at the moment, the length of one loop is considerably larger than the other, and this will result in some phase and amplitude differences.
Before you move on from this configuration, I'd try to make the connections to the amplifier from both loops to be the same length. Maybe by crossing one of the amplifier connections across to the other loop.
?
Regards,
?
Martin
?
?
?
?


Roland
 

the cable lengths differ by 10 cm. I connected them crosswise on the amplifier.


 

Hi Roland,
If you are doing cross parallel connection with loop configuration on your earlier pictures (cannot see the newer ones) with 2nd loop sitting behind the first one then its going to make things quite worse. You only should cross parallel loops when they are in the same plane (like described by LZ1AQ), so that your loop's currents are in phase. For your config it should be strait parallel.
Regards,
Simon

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 3:07?PM Roland via <roland=[email protected]> wrote:
Crossing the cables at the amplifier has made it worse. I can easily determine this by looking at the signal input level of the RX888
?
?
?
?
WSPR confirms it
?
?
73
Roland
?


Roland
 

I can no longer add inline pictures to a post for some reason.
?
Crossing the cables at the amplifier has made it worse. I can easily determine this by looking at the input signal of the RX888.
?
Dual Loop crossed connections at Amp. RX888 signal input level
Single Loop. RX888 signal input level
?
WSPR confirms the negative impact of crossed cables at the Wellgood Amp
I will make cables of the same length for all 4 connections from the loop to the amplifier and test again.
?
?


 

开云体育

should not rf gain etc be the same in both pictures??

dg9bfc sigi

Am 21.01.2025 um 00:23 schrieb Roland via groups.io:

I can no longer add inline pictures to a post for some reason.
?
Crossing the cables at the amplifier has made it worse. I can easily determine this by looking at the input signal of the RX888.
?
Dual Loop crossed connections at Amp. RX888 signal input level
Single Loop. RX888 signal input level
?
WSPR confirms the negative impact of crossed cables at the Wellgood Amp
I will make cables of the same length for all 4 connections from the loop to the amplifier and test again.
?
?


Roland
 

As I mentioned, crossing the connections had a negative impact. The VAG of the RX888 has its limits and can't compensate for every situation. Now that I have connected 4 cables of the same length, the RF gain is the same on both RX888


Roland
 

I meant VGA


 

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:23 PM, Roland wrote:
I can no longer add inline pictures to a post for some reason.
Hi Roland,
you can upload photos to an album in the "photos" folder and put a link that leads there.
?
regards
Fred


 

Hi Roland,
?
I think we misunderstood each other.
?
I meant for the parallel loops to remain connected in parallel, and in the same phase as before, but just swap one of the amplifier connections, across to the other end of the existing thick interconnecting cable you have between the two loops. This is to make the circumference of the two loops, including the interconnecting cables, the same as each other. At the moment, one loop has a longer electrical path than the other.
?
Regards,
?
Martin
?
?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:56 PM, Roland wrote:

As I mentioned, crossing the connections had a negative impact


Roland
 

RR Martin,
?
that's exactly what I did. But the results were worse than before. I am now using 4 cables of the same length (430mm) and connected them like in the photo in the opening post (parallel). WSPR comparison has been running since midnight UTC. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there will be any significant improvement, but let's wait until midnight (24-hour period).
?
Interestingly, most of the bands (2200 - 80m) are better than my single loop. Only 40m is worse.
?
?
73
Roland


 

Hi

Try a better amplifier, one that tracks the impedance of loop..ie in production the Lz1aq. .plenty of info on here how to make an “ improved” one.
NOTE.. that is improved over the 2222 one on his website, NOT Lz1aq’s production model ( which is a different beast.)

I have built single loop, parallel loop ( similar to yours) and crossed parallel loops. All with tracking amps. ( improved” Lz1AQ’s using 5551’s.)

Single loop the “ worst”
The twin loop,
Crossed parallel the best..

BUT to get any real improvement one does need low noise floor at qth, or you will never really notice the difference. ( unless you built them wrong/ using poor preamp.)

Regards Simon


Roland
 

One step at a time, no need to rush. I change one thing at a time and observe the difference.
Define “low noise floor” and on which band.
?
73
Roland


 

A report of the value of the low noisefloor and bandwidth for each iteration would be useful for those of us on the email thread, please.

Dave - W?LEV


On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:28?PM Roland via <roland=[email protected]> wrote:
One step at a time, no need to rush. I change one thing at a time and observe the difference.
Define “low noise floor” and on which band.
?
73
Roland



--
Dave - W?LEV



Roland
 

The use of four connection cables of the same length (connected in parallel) has not brought any improvement
?
Roland
?


 

Roland..

You maybe improving the loop but not able to detect it or it may even seem worse IF your amplifier is not correct for the now lower impedance of loop.
This is why am suggesting use a good amplifier, one with a low impedance input that tracks the loop impedance as frequency increases.

Re noise floor, do you live rural, urban etc??


Roland
 

I will try the LZ1AQ Amp next. I live in a far from a "quiet" location. I wonder what you define as a low-noise floor.


 

Hi Roland

Low noise floor is to be found in a rural location. Ie I have s0 ( sometimes s1) noise on a full size 40m vertical. Where as in london it was s9 if lucky.

See itu/r p.373-13 or similar..