For receiving only! Not for transmitting.
Would you rather...
A:
1 loop of wire equivalent to 1 full wave-length at desired reception-frequency (So the wire has the length of 1 full wave-length)
B:
2 turns of wire, so the wire is technically double the wave-length (2 times longer than desired wave-length)
or
C:
3 turns of wire, so the wire is thrice the wave-length.
when
the loop-diameter is the same in all 3 cases (Same size antenna in terms of width and depth, but 3 different lengths of wire laid out in 1, 2 or 3 turns around the loop-circumference)
AND
the entire construct will be passive and directly connected to the feed-line without any type of impedance-matching devices or anything else at any point.
////////////
I plan to experiment with laying out some cable in my garden (Urban area, no high-rises nearby though), for a 'loop-on-ground' antenna, and I would like to avoid cutting the cable unless a single-turn loop is far superior to simply rolling out the entire cable in 3 turns.
The roll of cable is currently 3 times the full wave-length I'm going for (So basically there's enough cable for 3 full-wavelength antennas)
But I'm unsure if using it like that is much better or much worse, or not making much difference, compared to cutting off a third of the cable which would give me enough wire for a single turn loop at the full wave-length.
When I google I get different answers.
Some say 'longer is always better', others say multi-turns won't enhance anything but also won't be detrimental, others say 1 single turn will cause the directional-lobes to be more along the horizon rather than straight up (Though others dispute that by saying a loop-on-ground is always just straight up)
So I'm not sure what might be better here and can't really try all options without cutting the cable, and I would obviously prefer the final solution to not involve a cable having been cut unnecessarily.
I know there are no easy answers and other things, such as soil-composition and so on, play in on which may be the better approach.
But I'm just interested in what people speculate might be the better option here.
Would you rather...
A:
1 loop of wire equivalent to 1 full wave-length at desired reception-frequency (So the wire has the length of 1 full wave-length)
B:
2 turns of wire, so the wire is technically double the wave-length (2 times longer than desired wave-length)
or
C:
3 turns of wire, so the wire is thrice the wave-length.
when
the loop-diameter is the same in all 3 cases (Same size antenna in terms of width and depth, but 3 different lengths of wire laid out in 1, 2 or 3 turns around the loop-circumference)
AND
the entire construct will be passive and directly connected to the feed-line without any type of impedance-matching devices or anything else at any point.
////////////
I plan to experiment with laying out some cable in my garden (Urban area, no high-rises nearby though), for a 'loop-on-ground' antenna, and I would like to avoid cutting the cable unless a single-turn loop is far superior to simply rolling out the entire cable in 3 turns.
The roll of cable is currently 3 times the full wave-length I'm going for (So basically there's enough cable for 3 full-wavelength antennas)
But I'm unsure if using it like that is much better or much worse, or not making much difference, compared to cutting off a third of the cable which would give me enough wire for a single turn loop at the full wave-length.
When I google I get different answers.
Some say 'longer is always better', others say multi-turns won't enhance anything but also won't be detrimental, others say 1 single turn will cause the directional-lobes to be more along the horizon rather than straight up (Though others dispute that by saying a loop-on-ground is always just straight up)
So I'm not sure what might be better here and can't really try all options without cutting the cable, and I would obviously prefer the final solution to not involve a cable having been cut unnecessarily.
I know there are no easy answers and other things, such as soil-composition and so on, play in on which may be the better approach.
But I'm just interested in what people speculate might be the better option here.
I will be doing some reading in the near future then and try to educate myself further on this 
