Sum Ting Wong wrote:
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.

I have given some thought your statement; I mean, it just strikes me as
so bizarre, I ignored it.

S/N ratio will NOT improve with an antennas efficiency, indeed, it will
increase lineally. The more efficient the antenna (sensitive) the
more-efficient it will be at receiving "on frequency noise" from even
greater distances. However, a poor antenna may be "efficiently
receiving" harmonic related noise which a cheap receiver may have
inadequate rejection against ... indeed, there are many "side-scenerios"
which are possible.

You seem to wish for a very highly efficient/sensitive antenna which
will do some sort of noise rejection (or, for some reason, have, in
error, given antenna physics this magical/mystical ability(s.))
However, "that/those antenna(s) only exists in science fiction, at least
at this date."

Surely, you have poor design which is subject to static noise and/or
poor antenna pattern which has noise sources within that pattern,
confused with antenna efficiency. And, of course, if one operates an
omni antenna, noise is a given, unless you live in a very remote part of
the world, or are running a dummy-load as an antenna ...

Regards,
JS