On Dec 24, 8:54*pm, John Smith wrote:
JB wrote:
ALA-1530+ loop antenna, and let me tell you, that one is well past my
budget, because it costs $466... I am looking for something a lot
cheaper... :-) If it is recommended to replace the ANT-60, that is.

This is my favorite:
http://www.antenna.it/military/log-periodic.htm

But seriously folks, the cheapest for me was busting open a junk TV for the
deflection coils. * A qrp type ham antenna tuner will certainly help. *Easy
to build L type by using an AM tuning cap and hind wound coil on toilet
paper roll. *Use a piece of scrap brass for a slider. *Put the whole thing
on a block of wood and use clip leads to change it around for the best
signal.

The earphone jack can often be used for a ground point.

Huh, you triggered some memories. *Best antenna I ever had was when I
was very young, probably ~8-10 years old, or so. *Long-wire which ran
diagonally to property lines of my parents. *And, certainly, longer than
120 ft. *That antenna filled the bands, as I remember!

No baluns, no matching, no knowledge of what I consider now, krist, it
was most likely a very poor match to the input on the Collins,
Hallicrafters, Zeniths, Gonsets, etc. which it was hooked to. * But, ya'
know what? *Those were the best times of my life. *And, to be absolutely
truthful with you, I did hope to hear aliens--as well as military,
gov't, etc. *Some, I accomplished--but, no aliens which I am aware of
... :-(

But, I never have had that much fun in my whole life, since those times
... the rest of life has been rather easy.

I only hope youngsters can still find the same ... :-)

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When I was in my teensI had access to a 5 mile beverage antenna in the
form of abandoned telegraph lines. I used to plug in the AM radio in
my car to it and listen for AM BCB dx. I could terminate either end
and hook up to the opposite end. In the day it was also a great way to
park with my date. Yes those were great times.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

...
When I was in my teensI had access to a 5 mile beverage antenna in the
form of abandoned telegraph lines. I used to plug in the AM radio in
my car to it and listen for AM BCB dx. I could terminate either end
and hook up to the opposite end. In the day it was also a great way to
park with my date. Yes those were great times.

Jimmie

Amen brother, I pity those who have never felt the thrill, the mystery,
the wonder, the indescribable feeling--while very slowly turning that
dial ... and finding "that" signal!

Warmest regards,
JS

Folks,

This is the OP speaking. Thanks for all the various tips and tricks! I
don't care much for the unpleasant tone between some posters in the
rec.radio.shortwave group, but there are still a few glimpses of good
information that I can use.

I was a very keen DX:er in the seventies, and I used a Swedish vacuum
tube radio from 1952, named Nornan LV 1220, with a continous SW band
from 15 meters to 120 meters. I still have it, and it still works, but
I thought that I'd go a little more modern with the ATS-909... :-)
Although I think that the LV 1220 is just as good when it comes to SW
reception.

I remember that my dream, in the seventies, was to hear the AFAN
(American Forces Antarctic Network) SW transmissions here in Sweden.
They then used a 1 kW transmitter, and I had heard that someone in the
south of Sweden had been able to hear them at some point. Alas, I
never did. I am pretty sure that I picked up the carrier wave, but I
couldn't hear anything... Bummer... In the 2009 WRTH the AFAN are only
listed as an FM station, so I guess that those days are over...

PJ

On Dec 25, 1:29*pm, PJ wrote:
Folks,

This is the OP speaking. Thanks for all the various tips and tricks! I
don't care much for the unpleasant tone between some posters in the
rec.radio.shortwave group, but there are still a few glimpses of good
information that I can use.

I was a very keen DX:er in the seventies, and I used a Swedish vacuum
tube radio from 1952, named Nornan LV 1220, with a continous SW band
from 15 meters to 120 meters. I still have it, and it still works, but
I thought that I'd go a little more modern with the ATS-909... :-)
Although I think that the LV 1220 is just as good when it comes to SW
reception.

I remember that my dream, in the seventies, was to hear the AFAN
(American Forces Antarctic Network) SW transmissions here in Sweden.
They then used a 1 kW transmitter, and I had heard that someone in the
south of Sweden had been able to hear them at some point. Alas, I
never did. I am pretty sure that I picked up the carrier wave, but I
couldn't hear anything... Bummer... In the 2009 WRTH the AFAN are only
listed as an FM station, so I guess that those days are over...

PJ

PJ you can't get Antartica anymore as Ace says, but there are lots
more challenging AFN stations to seek out and have fun with. Sadly the
WRTH does not list them conveniently but you can see the full
shortwave spread at:
http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/ShortWave.aspx

You have had lots of blah blah on antenna's, but for your 909 I
wouldn't use anything other than the ANT-60 you have, otherwise you
will overload it and possibly blow the front end.

If you like AM BCB MW DX you might find one of the cheap tuneable
loops provided by the big dealers such as Martin Lynch or Universal of
some help.

Have fun and good listening

John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
ERGO software
Drake SW8. Sangean 803A
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop.
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

I can add a little information that might be helpful.

When considering a receiving antenna, the single thing you need to be
concerned about is signal to noise ratio. Unless your antenna is
exceptionally poor and/or your receiver exceptionally noisy, making what
you receive louder is just a matter of turning up the volume, or adding
an audio amplifier if it's not loud enough. But it won't help you hear a
station, because it and the noise will get louder in the same proportion.

Quite a bit of what you'll read about antennas deals with improving
antenna efficiency. That's because it's important when the antenna is
used for transmitting. But when you use it for HF receiving, efficiency
doesn't matter unless it gets to be bad enough that your receiver's
noise becomes greater than the atmospheric noise it's receiving. A quick
test for this condition is to disconnect the antenna. If the noise
decreases, it means that atmospheric noise is greater than receiver
noise -- the usual case -- and efficiency improvements won't help any.
They'll just increase both the signal and noise by the same amount,
which won't help you a bit in hearing any signals.

To improve reception, you have to improve the signal to noise ratio. If
there's noise coming from a local source, for example a light dimmer or
an arcing power line, you can often reduce the noise by using a
horizontal antenna, putting the antenna away from the house and power
line conductors, and making sure the feedline is decoupled so it isn't
part of the antenna. If noise is mostly coming from a single direction,
either local or distant, an antenna with a sharp null such as a small
rotatable loop often helps. And, other rotatable antennas with a
directional pattern such as Yagis and log periodics, will help if the
signal and at least some of the noise are coming from different
directions. If a fixed antenna is on the order of a half wave or longer,
you might get lucky and have a null pointed at a noise source. The null
will usually change direction with frequency, though, so it'll likely
only do the trick over a narrow range of frequencies. This can actually
be a bad thing, because when somebody gets lucky like this, he'll often
tout the antenna as being nearly miraculous in its performance, but no
one else will be able to duplicate the results.

Enjoy your shortwave listening. It's how I and probably most amateurs
got started in this fascinating hobby.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I can add a little information that might be helpful.

When considering a receiving antenna, the single thing you need to be
concerned about is signal to noise ratio. Unless your antenna is
exceptionally poor and/or your receiver exceptionally noisy, making what
you receive louder is just a matter of turning up the volume, or adding
an audio amplifier if it's not loud enough. But it won't help you hear a
station, because it and the noise will get louder in the same proportion.
...
Roy Lewallen, W7EL


I differ; although, I can understand why Roy would reply in such a
simplistic manner ...

If the antenna is resonate, matched to its' load, and is not using lossy
construction practices--a very magical thing occurs. And, in such a
situation, it appears as if a wire runs directly from the transmitter to
your antenna. Nicola Tesla first documents this, then others ...

However, most give up before they obtain the knowledge and construction
practices which produce such antennas--and, indeed, if you wish
broadband antennas, no matter how you construct them, they will only
produce this performance on a narrow band of frequencies, or perhaps,
just a single one ... but, they can be constructed to preform,
reasonably well, over a broadband of frequencies or even bands.

If you have immense focus, devotion to the construction of antennas, a
reasonably astute mind, and the necessary skills, a willingness to
construct until you have that "revelation"--the realization of all this
awaits you. :-)

Warm regards,
JS

On Dec 26, 6:56*pm, John Smith wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I can add a little information that might be helpful.

When considering a receiving antenna, the single thing you need to be
concerned about is signal to noise ratio. Unless your antenna is
exceptionally poor and/or your receiver exceptionally noisy, making what
you receive louder is just a matter of turning up the volume, or adding
an audio amplifier if it's not loud enough. But it won't help you hear a
station, because it and the noise will get louder in the same proportion.

RHF wrote:

...
JS - You are replying like and Amateur Radio Operator
[HAM] and are most likely You Are Technically Correct
-wrt- Every item that you have pointed out is very valid
for Amateur Radio [HAM] Operators.

RL - In this instance Knows His Reader and is replying
as a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) to the Original
Question : Which was posted by a SWL for Tips on
what would be {how to make} a better SWL 'type' of
Antenna.
-wrt- The SWLer "RL" is Practically Correct.

JS - You speak of Antenna 'resonance' while the SWL
Antenna is by-design a board-banded "Random" Wire
Antenna : Which is often used un-tuned across the
Shortwave Radio Bands from 3~30 Mhz.
Result : On-average-better-Signal-Levels
-and- On-average-lower-Noise-Levels

RL - Is very correct that for the Shortwave Radio Listener
(SWL) : Their Antenna's should give them improved 'better'
Signal-to-Noise : So That They Can Hear More [.]

two similar hobbies and two different objectives - iane ~ RHF
.
.

Again, in the narrow context which you describe this, you are correct.
But, there is no reason to NOT have an antenna of resonate length. A
simple motor and a spring loaded real to take up slack will allow you to
construct an antenna of variable length and multi-band capability.
Indeed, only ones knowledge, "macguiverisms", and patience limits one
.... as opposed to purchasing a product which is solely, usually, based
on construction costs alone.

I think the post, of mine, which you are responding to, with your above
response, implied all this--I honestly meant to imply such ... or, in
other words, you can only get out what you put in with your efforts,
time, materials, knowledge, techniques, etc.; Or, i.e., the more
thought, design and good construction practices used, the better the
results.

While some of us may search for the most simple constructions, others
will go towards the most elaborate constructions--if anyone is like
myself, complexity grew with understanding, knowledge, patience, etc.

And, as I implied, Roy gave an answer which would have sufficed for,
perhaps, the majority of SWL-ers... I did not fault it (his response),
rather I expanded upon it ... no harm meant here, nor did I intend to
"slight" anyone! HONEST!

Regards,
JS