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

On Dec 26, 8:30*pm, John Smith wrote:
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

JS,

Alas i am but a simple shortwave LISTENER

I simply LISTEN and 'enjoy' what I LISTEN too

Beyond that; when i LISTEN everything else
is so much technical 'noise'

JS - Enjoy "The Craft" of BEING an Amateur "Ham"
Radio Operator -and- I am sure that you are a lot
more . . . and rightly well deserved too.

js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF

RHF wrote:

...
js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
.

Quit peeing on my leg ...

Brother, I enjoy having a good time, a good drink and the company of a
good woman as well as anyone; And, furthermore, I am here because I
enjoy a good antenna as well as anyone else.

I am here because some know much more than me, can explain it in a
manner which I can absorb (Cecil is but one example), and I expect there
is much more for us ALL to learn, indeed ...

I ain't here to lecture you ... I ain't here to be a ham ... I ain't
here to play the game of "one-up-man-ship"; I am here to catch what I
missed "the-first-time-around"--end-of-story.

But now, a good argument, a good debate, a good "theory-session" ...
count me in!

Sit back, and pick on the next guy in line ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

...
js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
.

Quit peeing on my leg ...

Brother, I enjoy having a good time, a good drink and the company of a
good woman as well as anyone; And, furthermore, I am here because I
enjoy a good antenna as well as anyone else.

I am here because some know much more than me, can explain it in a
manner which I can absorb (Cecil is but one example), and I expect there
is much more for us ALL to learn, indeed ...

I ain't here to lecture you ... I ain't here to be a ham ... I ain't
here to play the game of "one-up-man-ship"; I am here to catch what I
missed "the-first-time-around"--end-of-story.

But now, a good argument, a good debate, a good "theory-session" ...
count me in!

Sit back, and pick on the next guy in line ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
the feed point.

On Dec 27, 7:03*am, Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

...
js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
*.

Quit peeing on my leg ...

Brother, I enjoy having a good time, a good drink and the company of a
good woman as well as anyone; *And, furthermore, I am here because I
enjoy a good antenna as well as anyone else.

I am here because some know much more than me, can explain it in a
manner which I can absorb (Cecil is but one example), and I expect there
is much more for us ALL to learn, indeed ...

I ain't here to lecture you ... I ain't here to be a ham ... I ain't
here to play the game of "one-up-man-ship"; *I am here to catch what I
missed "the-first-time-around"--end-of-story.

But now, a good argument, a good debate, a good "theory-session" ...
count me in!

Sit back, and pick on the next guy in line ... *;-)

Regards,
JS

- A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely
- if you use a tuner at the feed point.

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL
http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/invertedl.html
http://www.antennex.com/preview/archive3/ltv.htm
* Yes a "Tuner" can help on other bands.

Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.
* Again the Wellbrook Drawing
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/images/antright.gif
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/longwire.html

as usual it's the 'l' if i know - iane ~ RHF

Dave wrote:

...
A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
the feed point.

Nicely is rather a broad term ...

And, if I am running 1KW+, or even multi-kilowatts, and the guy on the
other end is doing the same--we can communicate "nicely" on very poor
antennas ...

However, if I am running 5 watts, and the other guy is also, a properly
constructed antenna which has been designed around efficiency and most
desirable radiation pattern, along with having a correct impedance and
is matched EXACTLY to the equipment, and such is done without a lossy
"matchbox" or inefficient matching method--these would be of paramount
importance.

Physics, as much as math, is an EXACT science ... antennas are NOT in
realm of "art" (gray areas, open to interpretation, is a matter of
personal opinion, etc.), there is but one "best" antenna for any given
distance, terrain, pattern, etc.

Regards,
JS

Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

...
js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
.

Quit peeing on my leg ...

Brother, I enjoy having a good time, a good drink and the company of a
good woman as well as anyone; And, furthermore, I am here because I
enjoy a good antenna as well as anyone else.

I am here because some know much more than me, can explain it in a
manner which I can absorb (Cecil is but one example), and I expect
there is much more for us ALL to learn, indeed ...

I ain't here to lecture you ... I ain't here to be a ham ... I ain't
here to play the game of "one-up-man-ship"; I am here to catch what I
missed "the-first-time-around"--end-of-story.

But now, a good argument, a good debate, a good "theory-session" ...
count me in!

Sit back, and pick on the next guy in line ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
the feed point.

A resonate 1/4 wave dipole transmits "nicely" and uses no lossy tuner
.... a resonate 1/4 wave vertical monopole, with drooping ground plane,
transmits "nicely", requires no lossy tuner, and is damn near a perfect
match to 50 ohm coax ...

A 1/2 wave version of either of the above produces a superior pattern
and can be matched with either a T-match or gamma-match ... indeed, a
very minimal counterpoise is all which is necessary--and, if things are
"perfect", not even that is needed, or simply a choke on they outside of
the coax a ~1/4 wave away from feed point. A 5/8 is non-resonate
physical length, and even demonstrates a superior pattern (at least on
paper and with antenna prediction software ... )

However, in side-by-side comparisons on 10-6-2m antennas I have built,
comparing a 5/8 against the 1/2 (construction methods/materials and
matching components identical) ... the actual difference, in the real
world, must be less than the width of a meter needle in the readings ...
or, put simply, I no longer deal with the extra length required of the
5/8 ... your mileage may vary ...

Regards,
JS

RHF wrote:

...
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
.

But, can I ask you one question?; You do pull on your pants one leg at
a time, right? wink

I mean, only politicians, as far as I know, claim different! LOL

Regards,
JS