On Dec 26, 12:56*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*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.

SNIP

edit news group header

There are many good people interested in the hobby that post here with
information. Sometimes you just have to knock the Trolling idiots over
the head with a clue stick.

Please don't cross post to rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Normally it would
be the right thing to do but that amateur group has a real collection of
idiots in it and this news group already has its share of that type.

But if you insist on cross posting there I can guarantee you there will
be more of what you don't like to see here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

PJ - Telamon Is Right )

i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
{sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}

On Dec 26, 9:12 pm, RHF wrote:


Please don't cross post to rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Normally it would
be the right thing to do but that amateur group has a real collection of
idiots in it and this news group already has its share of that type.

But if you insist on cross posting there I can guarantee you there will
be more of what you don't like to see here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

PJ - Telamon Is Right )

No he's not. He's a bigger horses ass than nearly
anyone on rraa.. :/
And that's a fact. Only "John Smith" might give him
a run for his money in that dept. :/
But I'm not a whiner like Telamon, and try to tell
people what groups to use, or avoid.
They have horses asses of some kind on all the
groups. I just ignore *them*. Not the whole group.
It's like "John Smith". I think he's a horses ass,
but I don't try to tell him where to go, or others to
avoid him. I just lets the chips fall where they may.
Most people don't need me to help them decide
who is a horses ass, and who is not.
It becomes fairly obvious with the passage of time.
:/



i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
{sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}

I won't argue...

.
IMHO the Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna people are
good people -but- They 'focus' on two disciplines :
Power Output Handling -and- Ability To Hear
[Cause They Both Transmit and Listen]

-while- The Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL) is also
'focus' on two disciplines : Improved Signal plus Noise
Reduction -aka- Better Signal-to-Noise (S/N) Ratio
[Cause They "Only' Listen and Do Not Transmit]


This is purely cheap ground luncheon loaf... IE: bologna
Radio reception is radio reception. It does not matter
if one is a ham, or SWL, or whatever. The rules do not
change due to the type of service being received.
I almost never worry about power handling. Most of
my antennas will take way more power than I would
ever use. It's rarely even a consideration.
What is "ability to hear"? It's basically the same thing
as S/N ratio. In this regard, there is no difference
what type of service is received, S/N ratio is equally
important.

Read these Posts here on Rec.Radio.Shortwave about
the Low Noise Shortwave Radio Antenna Concepts that
were 'popularized;
.
Here are the Three Key Posts :
.
# 1 - SWL Longwire -by- John Doty

* Actually, a fixed matching transformer can dramatically
reduce the wild swings in antenna efficiency that a coax
fed wire antenna exhibits.

But! that will rarely effect the S/N ratio on the shortwave
bands. Like Roy said, if you can disconnect the antenna,
and the background noise noticeably drops , you have
plenty of signal. Adding a better match will rarely
increase the S/N ratio on HF, because the desired signal
and the undesired noise increase at an equal level.
You have pumped up the S meter readings, but you
have not improved the actual S/N ratio.
When I use my large multi band dipoles for SW reception
on 49 meters, do you think I bother with a tuner?
Nope.. Total waste of time being I already have way
more signal than I would ever need even if looking into
a large mismatch.

.
# 2 - Low Noise Antenna Connection -by- J
* The difference between a mediocre antenna system and
a great antenna system isn't the antenna itself: it's
the way you feed signals from the antenna to the receiver.
* The real trick with a shortwave receiving antenna system
is to keep your receiver from picking up noise from all
the electrical and electronic gadgets you and your
neighbors have.

I can't argue with this. But trust me, hams are no different
than SWL's when it comes to trying to reduce local noise
pickup. This is just common sense, and not a practice
only used by SWL's. :/
.
# 3 - Grounding Is Key To Good Reception

Now, this part here is just plain ole horse manure.
Grounding is not a "key" to good reception, unless you
are using an antenna that requires a ground connection
in order to complete the antenna.
Or the grounding is to further decouple the feed line
from the antenna. But you don't require a ground
to decouple a feed line. It's just one method commonly
used with random length antennas fed with a coax
feed line.
None of my wire antennas require a ground connection
as they are complete antennas unto themselves.
Ground can actually be a source of noise in many
cases.

To sum, some make a mountain out of a molehill. :/
Richard Clarks simple solution of just adding more wire
to the whip on the radio is likely to work just as well
as anything proposed so far. If local noise is a
problem, then he might consider feeding an outside
wire with a decoupled feedline.
Anything further than that is likely S meter pumping
overkill.

On Dec 27, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:12 pm, RHF wrote:



Please don't cross post to rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Normally it would
be the right thing to do but that amateur group has a real collection of
idiots in it and this news group already has its share of that type.

But if you insist on cross posting there I can guarantee you there will
be more of what you don't like to see here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

PJ - Telamon Is Right )

No he's not. He's a bigger horses ass than nearly
anyone on rraa.. * :/
And that's a fact. Only "John Smith" might give him
a run for his money in that dept. * :/
But I'm not a whiner like Telamon, and try to tell
people what groups to use, or avoid.
They have horses asses of some kind on all the
groups. I just ignore *them*. Not the whole group.
It's like "John Smith". I think he's a horses ass,
but I don't try to tell him where to go, or others to
avoid him. I just lets the chips fall where they may.
Most people don't need me to help them decide
who is a horses ass, and who is not.
It becomes fairly obvious with the passage of time.
:/



i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
{sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}

I won't argue...

*.
IMHO the Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna people are
good people -but- They 'focus' on two disciplines :
Power Output Handling -and- Ability To Hear
[Cause They Both Transmit and Listen]

-while- The Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL) is also
'focus' on two disciplines : Improved Signal plus Noise
Reduction -aka- Better Signal-to-Noise (S/N) Ratio
[Cause They "Only' Listen and Do Not Transmit]

This is purely cheap ground luncheon loaf... IE: bologna
Radio reception is radio reception. It does not matter
if one is a ham, or SWL, or whatever. The rules do not
change due to the type of service being received.
I almost never worry about power handling. Most of
my antennas will take way more power than I would
ever use. It's rarely even a consideration.
What is "ability to hear"? *It's basically the same thing
as S/N ratio. In this regard, there is no difference
what type of service is received, S/N ratio is equally
important.

Read these Posts here on Rec.Radio.Shortwave about
the Low Noise Shortwave Radio Antenna Concepts that
were 'popularized;
*.
Here are the Three Key Posts :
*.
# 1 - SWL Longwire -by- John Doty
* Actually, a fixed matching transformer can dramatically
reduce the wild swings in antenna efficiency that a coax
fed wire antenna exhibits.

But! that will rarely effect the S/N ratio on the shortwave
bands. Like Roy said, if you can disconnect the antenna,
and the background noise noticeably drops , you have
plenty of signal. Adding a better match will rarely
increase the S/N ratio on HF, because the desired signal
and the undesired noise increase at an equal level.
You have pumped up the S meter readings, but you
have not improved the actual S/N ratio.
When I use my large multi band dipoles for SW reception
on 49 meters, do you think I bother with a tuner?
Nope.. Total waste of time being I already have way
more signal than I would ever need even if looking into
a large mismatch.

*.
# 2 - Low Noise Antenna Connection -by- J
* The difference between a mediocre antenna system and
a great antenna system isn't the antenna itself: it's
the way you feed signals from the antenna to the receiver.
* The real trick with a shortwave receiving antenna system
is to keep your receiver from picking up noise from all
the electrical and electronic gadgets you and your
neighbors have.

I can't argue with this. But trust me, hams are no different
than SWL's when it comes to trying to reduce local noise
pickup. This is just common sense, and not a practice
only used by SWL's. * :/

*.
# 3 - Grounding Is Key To Good Reception

Now, this part here is just plain ole horse manure.
Grounding is not a "key" to good reception, unless you
are using an antenna that requires a ground connection
in order to complete the antenna.
Or the grounding is to further decouple the feed line
from the antenna. *But you don't require a ground
to decouple a feed line. It's just one method commonly
used with random length antennas fed with a coax
feed line.
None of my wire antennas require a ground connection
as they are complete antennas unto themselves.
Ground can actually be a source of noise in many
cases.

To sum, some make a mountain out of a molehill. :/
Richard Clarks simple solution of just adding more wire
to the whip on the radio is likely to work just as well
as anything proposed so far. If local noise is a
problem, then he might consider feeding an outside
wire with a decoupled feedline.
Anything further than that is likely S meter pumping
overkill.

"N",

Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.

50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2102499

"n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF

On Dec 27, 12:53*pm, RHF wrote:


"N",

Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.

Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
anything? We are not talking about transmitting.
We are talking about receiving, "or at least I am", and
the rules do not change when you vary the frequency a
few mhz.
And there are more than one ways to skin a cat with a
given piece of wire. If I had a portable that normally used
a whip antenna for SW, I would be much more likely to
take that zip cord and split it totally apart to make a
single 100 ft wire. I would simply clip it onto the whip.
I bet my version would be the better performer of the
two, low bands for sure. But this has nothing to do
with what I'm listening to. If I'm listening on a ham rig,
and I'm not transmitting, I'm a SWL the same as anyone
else. :/
And most certainly so if I'm listening to a broadcast band
like 31m, or whatever. Do you think I play by different
rules than you if we are both listening to 31m at the same
time?
I hope not... :/
Sure, you can make a quite decent and usable SWL
antenna from nothing but a piece of wire, or zip cord.
But that is not a requirement to be a ®real SWL.
How would you like to try listening to 19m DX on my
tri-band yagi, which is still close enough to 20m, to
give pretty danged good performance and some F/B?

With that, why would I want to use a zip cord antenna?
It boggles the mind... :/
And I'm talking receive, not transmit. We'll pretend the
mike and keyer have been superglued to a tango-
uniform status.
But I guess being I'd rather use my full size yagi and
have a bit of F/B ratio, which improves S/N ratio, which
is the whole purpose of this topic, I'm not a ®real SWL..
Chortle.. :/
You two guys kill me... You really do.


50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102499

Uh.. I know where to buy wire.. :/


"n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF

No, there isn't. Not when it comes to receiving.
To propose otherwise is just ludicrous.
I listen to all the same bands you do at some
time or another. I was a rabid SWL when I was in
jr. high school. That was nearly 40 years ago.
I started DXing AM-BC when I was 8 years old
and got my first mighty six transister radio for my
birthday.
It's the main reason I'm a ham now. Just a natural
progression... In other words, I might have been
born yesterday, but not last night. :/

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

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

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
How does one transmit MW with a ferrite bar antenna?

RHF wrote:

...
"n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
.
.


Simply a pipe dream ...

The same antenna which transmits the MOST EFFICIENT signal possible,
will also receive the signal the MOST EFFICIENTLY (given measuring
parameters remain the same for both modes, i.e., T/R) ... smaller gauge
components with far less power ratings can be used for receiving
antennas--that is the most important difference, and actually, the only
important one(s.)

However, I can see how some would come the the conclusion(s) you have.
In cheap receivers, you really don't know what ohm impedance the antenna
jack REALLY is. It may say 50 ohms and be 100, 200 ... 500 etc. Least,
that has been my experience ... when you get into professional gear,
costing thousands, they can take the time and aim for accuracy.

Regards,
JS

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:27:09 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

The same antenna which transmits the MOST EFFICIENT signal possible,
will also receive the signal the MOST EFFICIENTLY

If that were true then the BIG boys on 160m would have no need for
tall vertical transmitting antennas and traveling wave (Beverage)
receive antennas. They could just use one or the other for both
transmitting and receiving, but they don't. That's because one is
better for transmitting and one is better for receiving.

S.T.W.

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:27:09 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

The same antenna which transmits the MOST EFFICIENT signal possible,
will also receive the signal the MOST EFFICIENTLY

If that were true then the BIG boys on 160m would have no need for
tall vertical transmitting antennas and traveling wave (Beverage)
receive antennas. They could just use one or the other for both
transmitting and receiving, but they don't. That's because one is
better for transmitting and one is better for receiving.

S.T.W.

That is simply ridiculous, as I stated, in any properly designed
antenna, with the proper pattern to achieve the points in question, and
able to handle xmitter power, and is the MOST efficient for the purpose
at hand will be EQUALLY efficient in both transmitting and receiving ...

On 160m, I have ALWAYS used the same antenna to transmit as to receive ...

What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE ... and, there is but one truth
possible here. And, certainly, in the situation you stated above, a
discrepancy (imbalance) has been, absolutely, induced, as one antenna
will out preform the other, have a different pattern, etc.

However, a beverage would NOT be my first choice for a transmitting
antenna! And, certainly, there is no comparison over the directionality
difference (i.e., patterns) between these two antennas!

Regards,
JS