On Dec 23, 8:06*pm, SC Dxing wrote:
PJ,

I've discovered there is no best antenna for everyone for shortwave
listening. Ignore the trolls here, start off with your wire antenna,
then experiment if you wish. I've tried a few things over the past few
weeks and for me, just running a wire along the ground about 60 feet
works best for me. I guess the only certain thing is that an antenna
that runs outside will work better than an inside antenna. If you
can't run one outside, try to put it by a window or up high in your
house/apartment. Experimenting is part of the fun, just google around,
play around, and have hours of fun on your new radio. I only in the
last few weeks have rediscovered listening to SW radio.

Happy listening.

SC,
Did you inductively couple the antenna to your whip? If you didn't you
will notice a marked improvement if you do it that way. Just in case
you don't know (I think I posted this already) grab you some wire (I
use 11 or 12 gauge) and tightly wrap five-seven turns around your whip
and cut the rest off. Pull about an inch of the plastic off and clip
onto that. At one time I was doing the "exact" thing you are except I
think my stretch of wire was 70ft. But I picking up a lot rf here and
there, pretty high noise floor on some bands. When I coupled it that
way the noise floor dropped to nothing.

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

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

On Dec 23, 9:46*am, PJ wrote:
Folks,

I have purchased a Sangean ATS-909 World Receiver. It is equipped with
an internal ferrite antenna för MW and LW, and a telescope antenna for
SW and FM. It also comes with a portable SW antenna (ANT-60), seven
meters long. Is this external antenna generally sufficient for SW
reception, or should I get a different antenna? If yes, is there a
solution that doesn't cost all that much money? I have a copy of the
2009 World Radio TV Handbook, and they are talking about a Wellbrook
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.

PJ

http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html
With a bit of hacking, the Wellbrook ALA 100 is as good as any of the
shortwave antennas they sell. It is just the amplifier. You have to
roll your own loop. The ALA100 is the lowest cost welbrook. At the
current exchange rate, the ala100 is a over $200.

I have made a few loops with this amp. I have a 2ftx2ft out of copper
pipe for direction finding. I have 4ft x 6ft copper pipe for regular
use. It's really stupid big and will eventually be reduced to the
original 4ftx4ft. I have a few portable designs that are around 40ft
worth of wire.

The wellbrook loops are just amazing. All that said, the ATS909
probably can't handle that much signal. It would make sense to use
one with a portable shortwave radio.

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.

John Smith wrote:
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

I don't recognize "politician" as being a monolithic culture. There are
decent ones and there are many more ****-heads, but that holds true for
society in general.

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

Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
tune it electrically. After all, you may want to tune around some. I can
tell you it is a pain to have to go out and physically make adjustments for
any frequency excursion. There are many nonresonant length antennas that
outperform the resonant length. The 5/8 wave vertical comes to mind. A
long-wire provides a larger capture area. Then there are phased arrays that
reinforce. Look up the HAARP project and see how they made a very large
array and were able to electrically steer the pattern. Cool!

The more you know, the cheaper it gets, and the more you giggle when it
works. The only problem is you get hooked and want to do so much more.

JB wrote:
Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
tune it electrically.

Actually, tuning it "electrically" *is* tuning the antenna
*system* to resonance. When I vary my ladder-line length
to achieve system resonance, I am using my feedline as a
series tuning section. When one achieves a Z0-match with a
tuner or by other means, one is tuning the antenna system
to resonance which, in a near-lossless system, results in
near-conjugate match and near-maximum power transfer in
either direction (assuming the receiver input impedance
equals the Z0-match impedance).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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.