On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:24:44 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

efficiency is only one measure of antenna performance.

Exactly. You get it and JS doesn't.

S.T.W.

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:24:44 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

efficiency is only one measure of antenna performance.

Exactly. You get it and JS doesn't.

S.T.W.

Oh, "I get it", you guys just don't get the lack of importance to your
point(s!)

Correct match to you rig does NOT affect the antennas efficiency, you
would still want the most efficient antenna.

Antenna length does relate to efficiency, and normally you would erect
the longest possible for the freqs, and the efficiency of the antenna is
improve, if by nothing else, than capture area ... however, you must
balance this against the antenna pattern you wish.

The pattern of the antenna, which will be identical in both T/R, is
important. Antenna efficiency is important. Match to feedline, and
feedline to rig is important.

You seem to feel that s/n ratio is something to pursue, I tell you it is
not. This is actually handled in the antenna pattern, you do NOT want
the antenna to be receptive in the direction(s) of noise sources nor
have it prone to static charges and disturbance ... antenna design is
what controls this.

Your main problem is that you wish to separate all the elements out and
be able to deal with each one separately--you can't, every added
capacitance adds some measurable amount of inductance, every added
inductance adds some measurable amount of capacitance.

There is never a case when you wish to decrease antenna efficiency,
well, unless you are attempting to construct a dummy load ...

If the antenna is "too sensitive" (efficient), crank your rf gain down a
bit to the noise floor ...

However, if I was supporting a poor antennas' use, or selling a poor
antenna, lack of attention to efficiency would be my first "selling point!"

Let me repeat, there is NEVER a time a ham or swl'er will want lack of
efficiency--they have rf gain controls and other "attenuation boxes" to
handle that--you obviously are attempting to confuse antenna efficiency
with another aspect of antennas ... indeed, efficiency can be applied to
most aspects of an antenna, i.e., "most efficient length", "most
efficient match", "most efficient placement", "most efficient design",
"most efficient pattern", etc.--and these CAN all vary as to the
antennas intended use ... you can never make one change in antenna
design which DOES NOT affect all others--i.e., one change makes many ...
it is why EZNEC and MMANA-GAL are so desirable to toy with ... load up
the software, make one change, watch it affect all others ... well, most
of the time.

Regards,
JS

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:24:44 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

efficiency is only one measure of antenna performance.

Exactly. You get it and JS doesn't.

S.T.W.

Now, to sum that previous post up tightly, and it the hopes you "may get
it" THIS TIME ... you NEVER want a less efficient antenna--in the fact
that efficiency relates to transferring power to and from the ether.
Or, in the case you wish to focus upon, "efficiency = ability to pluck
incredibly weak signals from the ether."

Any other argument, is simply to replace a respectable antenna with a
dummy load or a partial dummy load; and, is not something which is
usually argued against, by sane men ...

Regards,
JS

In article , Dave
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:


I said NO such thing, indeed, I stated the EXACT opposite, it allows
maximum power transfer to the antenna, however, the losses in the
POOR antenna are now increased due to the losses in the matchbox--as
heat. And, no problems which exist in the POOR antenna have been
rectified, they are just masked ...

That is vastly oversimplified.

Absolutely, and at some point I must trust the reader has the resources
to extrapolate; otherwise, all postings would soon turn in to the
length, depth and completeness of a college textbook ...

For example, an antenna is a two lane road, running in both
directions(T/R), the same parameters which allow it to be the best
choice for transmitting, also are in action when that same antenna
"plucks" its' signals from the ether ... something I have pointed out in
multiple ways, multiple times ...

The average person must hear, read, study the same material six times
before "learning" it. And, an instructor once pointed out to me, not
all people respond to the same method, personality, mode-of-presentation
as another or others ... so, he pointed out the importance of gathering
data from multiple sources until the "epiphany" is realized ...


You're the guy from Lost in Space!

You are to kind Dave. The lost in Space Dr. Smith fooled some of the
people some of the time where our Smith fools none of the people none of
the time.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Dec 28, 12:14*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:46 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
anything? We are not talking about transmitting.
* ...

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, it is the same communication, both
ways, simply in reverse ... like I have stated before, the exact same
laws of physics governing the antenna makes it equally acceptable to
both transmitting and receiving. *The same pattern seen in the signal
transmitted will be seen in the signal(s) received.

- Your argument is the equivalent to arguing that
- a car designed to go forward would not be
- acceptable when backing up ...
- simply ridiculous!
-
- Regards,
- JS

JS -think-about-it-

IF 'by-design' the Car is in-fact designed
to go "Only" Forward :
* It may 'only' have Forward Gears and
a Transmission that has NO Reverse.
* No Rear Window
* No Rear Mirror
NOT So Ridiculous ~ RHF
http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2006/10...onmeteor72.jpg
*.
Just an Example of "Single Focus" Thinking :
Optimizing Your Results For One Purpose.

Sort of what Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL)
do when they consider how they are going to
Design, Build and Use an Antenna for the
Hobby of Shortwave Radio Listening *(SWLing)

Yes as you have pointed out : There is a Greater
Boby of Knowledge and Practicum Out There
That Could Be Considered and Used -but- The
Shortwave Listener (SWL) often is 'selective' in
what they consider and use to achieve their
specific limited goals.

It Has To Do With "Level-of-Involvement" :
* Many/Most Amateur Radio Operators {Hams}
have the well earn knowledge and experience
to function 'like' an Auto Mechanic -wrt- Cars
* * Hams at their best are Advocates of the
Technology [ Practicers of The Craft ]
* Many/Most Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWLs)
simply enjoy a level of knowledge and experience
to function 'like' a Car Driver -wrt- Cars
* * SWLs at their best are Hobbyists Enjoyers
of the Technology [ Users of the Technology ]
TBL : Both are Need -and- Both are Different

~ RHF
*.

I see you are ready to go to extraordinary lengths to justify your
statements or propose "special cases" which are only correct in extreme
circumstances of very limited parameters--this is all fine, however,
carry on without me ...

Again, it is as true as when I originally stated it, the same antenna,
its efficiency, fitness-for-purpose, pattern delivered, etc. will work
the same, both forward (transmitting), or in reverse (receiving.) *I am
sure there exists the possiblily of "breaking" or "orchastrating" the
antenna physics to bring about a special case or cases ... no practical
use I have yet seen has required this.

Many hams wish to think themselves "special" because of their hobby, now
you have brought me to the realization that there is the equivalent in
the SWL'ers hobby ... to me, it just looks like one of my other hobbies,
like tropical fish, for example.

Regards,
JS

JS - You started using 'Car' Analogy; and
I followed through with 'Car' Analogy ~ RHF

To many/most Hobbyists there 'hobbies are simply
"Hobbies" : Some thing that they do in their spare
time to enjoy and pass the time. Most Shortwave
Radio Listeners (SWL) fit into this Category of
Hobbyists.

For some/many Hobbyists there 'hobby' is their true
"Avocation" in-fact for some Their HOBBY is Their
Life : Some thing that They Do All The Time : They
Live and Breath Their Hobby : Many Amateur Radio
Operators {Hams} fit into this Category of HOBBYISTS.
http://www.answers.com/Avocation

This is Why I refer to Amateur Radio as "The Craft" :
The Mastery* of the Body of Knowledge and Practices
related to the Science and Art of Radio Operating.
* All Praise Be To Them That Do.
-but- that is not me : for i remain simply a plain old
shortwave radio listener : who keeps his swling
"k-i-s-a-p" = keep/ing it simply and practical

If some one asks "Where To Buy" :
I tell them 'where to buy'.

If some one asks "How To" {Build It} :
I tell them 'how to' {build it}
They Did Not Ask for "The Theory Behind It"
-and- i don't give them 'the theory behind it'

If some asks "What Do You "Recommend" :
I 'recommend' a something or two and usually
provide a few links as pointers to get them going.

hey it is just my opinion and nothing more - kisap ~ RHF
-ps- JS Yes You Are Right "I Am Extremely Special" ;-}

RHF wrote:

[stuff]

RHF, I have no bone to pick with you, don't fall victim to trolls here
which just wish to "stir up chit", to mask their ignorance ...

I had a chit load of ignorance (still do in many areas, including this
one!), you don't know until you do ... we are all here on differing
levels, we can all get along. When Roy, Cecil and others make
statements, I LISTEN, may not understand it, but I listen! :-)

I understand; trust me, you have done nothing to either make me like
you, or not ... that may or may not come later.

Now, this discussion continues ...

Warm regards,
JS

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Telamon wrote:

...
Yeah but we don't care about transmitting goofball, we care about
receiving and so that statement "A random wire (e.g. inverted L)
transmits nicely if you use a tuner at the feed point" by Dave is
relevant where you are not.


You ridiculous fool. You are the most complete brain dead example of a
sub-human which has ever been presented to me ...

You dumb twit. We don't care about transmitting.

Receiving is EQUALLY as important as the transmitting element in the
above.

Again you dumb twit, we don't care about transmitting.

Or, to explain it to the necessary point, for a mental midget, such
as yourself: "If the signal being transmitted is low power, or there
are bad conditions, and, perhaps, the guy is in Australia, I'd better
have the "best" antenna possible. However, if I am receiving the
"50,000 watt atmosphere burner", 50 miles away, a rusty coat-hanger,
most likely, would work ..."

You are one funny guy I'll give you that.

However, you mileage may vary with you "magical antenna logic!" grin

The only magic around here is spouted by you. Your experience is
"magically" different than anyone else's and your antenna theory is
simplistic at best not to mention the great job you do of putting words
in peoples mouthes never spoken but what else can we expect from the
comprehension impaired.

I'll tell you what is "magical" and that's the conversations you seem to
have in your head before you post.

You hit me as a guy attempting to pass off "magical physics" to
kindergarten-ers; but then, even that is, most likely, a challenge for
you ... sad, so very, very sad ... :-(

Yeah, very sad of you to keep plonking and then continue to read me.

What a goofball.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Dave wrote:

...
You pretend to be powerless to fight this...

My single voice IS powerless against the sheer magnitude of the
onslaught I would launch it against. However, the power of my voice
combined with thousands, tens-of-thousands, hundreds-of-thousands ... of
other voices eventually can and does make changes; and, is as it should be.

You have been very entertaining voice as usual though.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:27 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

You seem to feel that s/n ratio is something to pursue, I tell you it is
not.

You must have been one of the really strong stations I heard during
the last ARRL 160m contest that kept calling CQ over and over without
being able to hear all the stations that were answering you. It must
have been frustrating.

73, S.T.W.

Sum Ting Wong wrote:

...
You must have been one of the really strong stations I heard during
the last ARRL 160m contest that kept calling CQ over and over without
being able to hear all the stations that were answering you. It must
have been frustrating.

73, S.T.W.

Hmmm, from your statements, and text--if adhered to, most-certainly
suggests, they must be following your advise, surely! The "alligators",
or, i.e., stations which are all mouth and no ears ...

However, I am willing to debate, argue, stand-behind, etc., all which I
have said ... I actually HAVE built my antennas, and continue to do so
.... indeed, my statement is, "Only lamers buy them."

Regards,
JS