RadioBanter - View Single Post - Why Antenna Tuners Aren't Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening - Question Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antenna Tuners

March 12th 06, 10:59 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave

In article .com,
wrote:

You are not making logical sense. The random wire non-resonant common
mode antenna is a good reference antenna precisely because it has little
theoretical gain and it will work anywhere.

So the same can be said for a 1/2 wave dipole.

Fine then everything is relative.

The gain of a length of wire will not vary much depending on how it's
fed. Only the length really matters. Of course, different methods of
feeding vary as far as system efficiency. In the case of 1/2 wave or
smaller wires, the efficiency of the feed system is about the only
thing that matters much among the various versions of such.

Well that's just the way it is for electrically short wires. What you
missing here is the wire is half the antenna and the energy it picks up
is common mode and not just a function resonate length.

You compare it against a dipole and the dipole should show gain over
it as should any other antenna type made to be resonant at some
frequency.

How you fiqure? If the random wire were longer than the 1/2 WL
dipole, it could actually have more gain in a certain direction. The
reason a dipole is the common benchmark for horizontal wires is
because it's a well known measured quanity. Exactly what you want as
a "benchmark", or reference antenna. Look at most any antenna ad's
for yagi's. If you can find one that is measured against a random
wire, I'll send you $20. Most all will be measured against a 1/2 wave
dipole at the same height,

or instead be listed as dbi, which is a theoretical value. The only
difference between dbd and dbi is about 2.1 db. You are just shifting
your reference.

Yes a dipole is a classic reference antenna. This is not an amateur news
group.

Stop thinking like an amateur, this is a SW listening news group.

What does that have to do with anything? I place no distinction
between an antenna used for transmit, and one receive. They both obey
the same laws. I use the same types of antennas for both jobs. The
better an antenna is at transmitting , in general ditto for receive.
The properties of an antenna between transmit, and receive are
reciprical. IE: if an antenna has gain in a certain direction, this
applies equally transmit, or receive. I will always use the best
antenna for the job I can put up. And that is rarely ever a random
wire. Random wires are too micky mouse for my blood. But you can
consider that a personal problem. :/

A random wire is the basic antenna here.

Sure, it may be for some, but I'm sure not all are content to stay
with one antenna their whole life. I'm just as much as SWL as you
are, and my "basic" antenna is a 1/2 wave dipole. I've been SWLing
since 1964, when I got my first radio at the age of 8. A good bit
longer than I've been a ham. I didn't get into ham radio until the
8th grade. Didn't get legal until 77. When did you start SWLing? If
it's longer than 42 years, I'll give you a free cookie.

Please consider your audience before posting or keep on Trolling you
jerk.

If you want technical antenna theory then yeah a
dipole is a basic reference radiator most transmit antennas.

Whether it's for transmit or not is not really relevant. What other
kind of antenna theory is there? Do they also have "sears" antenna
theory, "geico" antenna theory, "dimbulb" antenna theory, etc? I
thought there was just one version... Heck, the other guy was the one
that brought up what "pro's" would use or do. Pro's don't measure
antennas against random wires. And I doubt most would use one if
they could use something better. I don't use random wires, and I'm
not even a pro. :/ Are you suggesting I would be a better SWLer if
I changed to random wires? That'll be the day... :/ LOL...

Well based on my reading of amateur news groups there is ham antenna
theory and then the theory the world actually operates on.

As you say LOL...

Laugh all you want. I'll just keep pointing out that the news group is
for short wave listening not ham radio. That the simplest antenna is a
Marconi type single wire antenna and if a listener wants to make an
antenna better than that he would expect a payoff in the way of stronger
received signals so one too weak before could now be heard, better
signal to noise or maybe directionality for various reasons. Please
consider your audience before posting or just keep on Trolling.

Your a good example of why I no longer read the amateur news groups and
am not a ham operator. Why would I want to go out of my way to talk to
someone like you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California