HF cross country wireless HF active loop

[Radioshane]

Dear Forum members
Does anyone know if the Cross Country
Wireless HF Active Loop Antenna V4
With Bias tee unit
Is any good

[dcwuk]

A lot of people have posted good reviews of the MLA 30 loop. It is not expensive and is great to experiment with.
Take a look on Facebook there are groups for it.
No had any experience with the cross country loop.

[Radioshane]

Sorry can no one give advice on the loop I mentioned at all

[deadite66]

have you looked at the CCW group?
https://groups.io/g/CrossCountryWireless/messages

what from people say its comparable to a Wellbrook loop.

[Radioshane]

Cheers bro
I’ll buy the aerial then

[2E0IHR]

I have the loop and have been thoroughly underwhelmed with it to be honest. I bought it based on all the glowing reviews but it really doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. From what I can see the tech minds YouTuber basically solicits free amateur radio gear in return for a review on the channel. Whilst he insists that the fact gets things for free doesn't affect his review I'm pretty sceptical to be honest, I mean if he gave someones gear a negative review they're unlikely to send him more free products in future. I think I've only actually seen one bad review on his channel. I guess it's a pretty good way to get yourself free stuff in addition to the advertising revenue from YouTube. There are also people in various forums etc that have recommended the loop but I'm not convinced they actually own it. Anyway if it's not too late mate I would suggest you don't buy it, if you have done already then sorry I didn't see this sooner.

[G4UCJ]

To answer this question accurately, we would need to know exactly which loop antenna you are talking about. The New v4 was designed for a different purpose than the older loop and can be mounted in at least 2 different ways, which significantly affects which types of signal the loop responds best to. I have 3 CCW active antenna products, each having their own particular uses.

My main LF/MF/HF receive antenna is a 1m aluminium loop (ex Wellbrook) fed via a CCW Loop Antenna Amplifier + (LAA+). I ordered the CCW LAA+ after the Wellbrook's inbuilt amplifier failed after over a decade of constant use. As the LAA+ was half the price of a replacement Wellbrook amp (having done plenty of research), I decided that CCW one was the best of the available alternatives (there are plenty of technical reviews of the many versions of amplifiers for small loops available on the market).
I really rate this amplifier, together with the aluminium frame it performs better than I could have expected. The bi-directional nulls are incredibly sharp, my old rotator (one of the generic offset types advertised on eBay for £80+) had trouble stopping on the null as it rotation steps were too coarse. The replacement rotator is an 'inline' model with a removable lower bracket for tower mounting, this one has finer steps and catches the null, but you still need to be watching the s-meter/waterfall closely so you can catch it. I have connected the LAA+ to the loop by 2 very short, thick gauge, stiff wires. Not only does the wiring support the amplifier, it provides a low impedance connection to the loop frame. The amplifier is fed via RG8x (mini with a 12 turn common mode choke at each end of the coax (1 of each, made from FT240 #75 and FT240 #43 toroid cores). This gives a low noise, highly directional receiving antenna. Unlike the WB, the CCW antennas can withstand high RF fields in close proximity, meaning you can have a separate transmitting antenna close to the loop without any damage occurring to the loop amplifier. They can even withstand RF being accidentally transmitted directly into the amplifier (IIRC 150W for 30 seconds) - you would realise pretty quickly what you had done, but without that protection the amplifier would be fried instantly, as would most other available amps.

The MK4 loop antenna is significantly smaller than the 'usual' 1m, approx., diameter loops used on HF. To make up for the lack of physical area, the v4 uses 2 small loops, in parallel. The result of this appears to be less signal pick up (smaller physical area = lower sensitivity, but higher top end frequency coverage). The smaller size of the v4 allows it to be mounted vertically or horizontally, and in a greater variety of installations, such as on the side of a house, on a fence, on a mast (it has less visual impact than a 'full' 1m loop on a mast, etc.) Download the v4 manual to read up about the different ways to install it and what the differences are. When you compare any of the CCW active antenna products to say the MLA30 type of active loop, the CCW will always seem to give poorer results - BUT, and this is a big but, the CCW will give you an improved SNR over the MLA. The signals may be stronger on the MLA but they will, in most cases, be more easily readable with a CCW loop. The MLA30 suffers with image and overload issues because of the type and gain of the amplifier used. With my antennas, I have a 20m passive loop (my transmitting antenna), which gives a much higher output than the CCW loop, however a lot of that 'increase' is down to more noise being picked up. The CCW is much quieter and gives a significantly better SNR on almost every signal, even though those signals read as being quite a lot weaker on the signal meter. The other CCW products I own are the active Delta (no longer in production), which covers from below 100kHz right up to 150MHz (it also works OK on the 230MHz DAB band, and the 250-300+MHz UHF aviation (mil) band).

The third CCW product is one I acquired a week or so ago and it is an active dipole (again, I think this is now discontinued), which was used as a test and measurement antenna by the RSGB and others because of the flat response across the whole of HF. The other two I have had from new, but this one I purchased 'used' from eBay. So far, I am pretty impressed, even with it mounted vertically at 3m up on a wooden fence, within 5 feet of my TX loop antenna. I run it though an MFJ 1026 phaser, together with the LAA+ loop on the other port so I can phase noise out and steer signals around. The main reason I wanted the dipole was for chasing NDB's. My main RX loop is great for that but I do miss out on some because I am not pointing in the right direction. The vertical dipole will pick up NDB's from all directions and the loop can be used to separate the signals whilst reducing any local noise.

Having been messing about with radio for over 45 years, I can say, comfortably, I now have the best receiving set-up I have ever used.

You may find the v4 doesn't do what you want it to do or as well as you want, which is OK as it is a compromise antenna. You will not get signals as strong as you would with a full sized antenna, or a 30/40m long random wire, but you may very well get significantly weaker signals that are clearer and stand out from the noise.

You will need to experiment with the installation method and try as many different locations as possible. If you have exhausted all of those options and have given the loop proper testing over an extended period, then you will be able to say whether the loop is suitable for the use you intended it for. Maybe Chris from CCVW can give you some pointers.

I haven't physically used a v4 loop, but I have read the theory and other users reports of how it performs. That, together with around 20 years of using active loops, I think allows me to make some hopefully accurate observations and to pass on my own experiences. Disclaimer: I have not been sent, or purchased, any products from Cross Country Wireless or similar to solicit reviews and I certainly have not been paid or been given any of these products for free. I purchased them over the past few years in order to use as part of my amateur radio and SWL station to aid reception through challenging conditions and noise.

73, if you have any questions or want to see images of the installation or results, just email and I'll cobble something together - I'm forever taking screen shots of received signals, etc.

Sean G4UCJ, IO91ox (Nr Milton Keynes)

[deadite66]

I have the loop and have been thoroughly underwhelmed with it to be honest. I bought it based on all the glowing reviews but it really doesn't live up to the hype in my opinion. From what I can see the tech minds YouTuber basically solicits free amateur radio gear in return for a review on the channel. Whilst he insists that the fact gets things for free doesn't affect his review I'm pretty sceptical to be honest, I mean if he gave someones gear a negative review they're unlikely to send him more free products in future. I think I've only actually seen one bad review on his channel. I guess it's a pretty good way to get yourself free stuff in addition to the advertising revenue from YouTube. There are also people in various forums etc that have recommended the loop but I'm not convinced they actually own it. Anyway if it's not too late mate I would suggest you don't buy it, if you have done already then sorry I didn't see this sooner.

i think one thing to bear in mind about tech minds video's is where he lives, he has a huge field behind him likely pretty low QRM, so what he tests will likely look much better than what noise the rest of us have to deal with.

when i first got my MLA-30 it was brilliant but now with my 2nd CCW loop amp feels like i'm chasing the dragon trying to get it back to how i remember it, just so much background noise, solar panels sprouting on lots of homes here. 20m is especially bad now.

[G4UCJ]

We're all getting into a similar boat regarding background noise levels. Even though there are not too many houses here at the moment, however, 1300 new houses are due to be built on the fields behind us and could be less than 50m away from us. I dread to think what the noise level will be like then. My immediate neighbours, and the one on the far side of him have festooned their gardens with solar, and other, powered lights - some of which flash in various patterns. One of these systems is causing me some grief on 6m (and I'm pretty sure, other bands too) at night, as soon as the ambient light goes down to the level where lights come on. This is one noise source I haven't sorted yet, but I am taking steps to reduce it as much as possible. I have done a few things to reduce the noise levels here by making sure my station is as clean as I can sensibly make it (there is always more that can be done, but you get to the point of diminishing returns regarding effort and cost vs results obtained). My advice would be to try the following steps to reduce what you can. Make a GM3SEK style mains filter, or similar. Everything in your shack needs to go through this mains filter. If it uses mains electricity and is in your shack/listening area, plug it into the output of the mains filter. This alone can reduce your noise level by several s-points (or dBFS, etc.). I have a commercial unit (A Tripplite Isobar Euro4 - a guy on eBay sells them sometimes. These are great, and I got mine for just under £10 - they are almost £80 to buy new!). This is a bit of the blurb: The Isobar has 2 sets of isolated filter banks that limit noise interaction among connected equipment. It also blocks disruptive EMI/RFI line noise that can cause equipment damage or data loss. Combines large toroidal chokes, ferrite rod-core inductors, HF/VHF capacitors, and metal oxide varistors to block interference. The full circuit is published on the unit itself and it does filter all 3 lines. If you find one at a good price, buy it. After this filter, I have a surge-protected and filtered 6-way distribution block, plus a couple of the 'FT-240 sized' toroid chokes on the mains input. As far as I can, all other leads have ferrite clip-ons or rings with multiple turns on. Feeders from various antennas have FT-240 toroids on them with an appropriate number of turns on for the frequency range in question, both inside and outside the shack (usually one at the feed-point, and the other one in the shack, at the termination). The other thing I have done is to start bonding all the gear together onto a single bus-bar. As per GM3SEK, all the equipment is connected from its ground connection via short, thick, cable to a bus-bar behind the equipment. I have yet to finish this as I need to source some more cable that will be suitable. There are some checks I need to dso to see if my PSU needs to be modified so that it is isolated from the noise (full details of what needs to be tested are on the GM3SEK site). Most of the time, my background noise levels are low to very low. Using active antennas in a noisy area is challenging, but loops and the like can at least be rotated to null the noise as much as possible. I use the CCW loop as my main receive antenna, phased with my transmitting antenna, a 20m long EFHW via an MFJ-1026 th is feeds my main HF station, a Yaesu FTdx10. I also have the CCW Active delta, which is fed via a modified MFJ-1026 phaser with either the CCW loop (via a passive splitter) or the CCW active dipole (horizontally mounted). This is fed into an Airspy HF+ Discovery SDR which is set up so it can be used as a panadapter to the FTdx10, or as a standalone SDR via the external radio tracking facility included in the SDR Console software. It has taken a LOT of time to get this lot all working together and not knocking each other out (I also have 6m and 2m stations that run at the same time with the antennas on the same mast as the EFHW). The effort in noise reduction has been worth it, but it is a never ending fight against the unfiltered 'wall-warts' from the Far East. I really hope you find some solution to your noise situation. I'd recommend getting some form of QRM eliminator. I have one I built from a kit that came from a guy in Poland and it works pretty well (he even supplied an alternate toroid so I could optimise it for LF operation - winding that tiny toroid was the most difficult part of the whole process!). 73, Sean G4UCJ