In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:

The way I see it (hopefully this is right) is that those deep level
variations really DO need smoothing out as described there, because they
represent signal loss greater than is likely to be caused by other errors
like basic mismatches, and possible overload at peaks as Europe has many
strong SW stations. Again, if I can use coax to increase SNR by reducing
noise out of nearby buildings, it reduces the problem to one of loss/gain.

Looking at it from the opposite angle, though: it's fairly common in
the HF bands for the signal level isn't the limiting factor in your
reception. Even an inefficiently-matched antenna can deliver enough
signal to overcome the self-noise of the front-end circuitry in your
receiver.

What limits your ability to receive, under these conditions, is band
noise and other spurious signals, which "drown out" the desired
signal. Improving the antenna matching wil have little or no benefit
in dealing with external noise. Neither will a preamp.

Now, using coax as a way of excluding some of the close-in interferers
isn't a bad idea at all. What you might want to consider doing, is
adding an active buffer at the longwire-to-coax feedpoint...
basically, a low-gain preamp (a few dB) designed to drive a 50-ohm
load efficiently and to overcome the (slight) signal losses in the
coax. Some people seem to favor the grounded-base or grounded-gate
broadband amplifier, as it has a modest gain, can be quite stable, and
has a good resistance to strong-signal overload. You could use a DC
inserter/block system to feed 9-12 volts up the same coax which
carries the signal down.

If you're really concerned about matching the resulting coax-carried
signal to your radio's antenna input, you could wind a fixed-ratio
broadband transformer with the correct impedance ratio.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

(Dave Platt) wrote in :

What limits your ability to receive, under these conditions, is band
noise and other spurious signals, which "drown out" the desired
signal. Improving the antenna matching wil have little or no benefit
in dealing with external noise. Neither will a preamp.


Point taken, at least with the matching vs noise. Others have said it won't
matter much and I see why. preamp might be another issue though, especially
in light of 'amdx's post:

"http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas/The%20Best%20Small%20Antennas%20For%20M
W,%20LW,%20And%20SW%20rev%202.pdf

The start page for that link is here;
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/dl.htm"

Now, using coax as a way of excluding some of the close-in interferers
isn't a bad idea at all. What you might want to consider doing, is
adding an active buffer at the longwire-to-coax feedpoint...
basically, a low-gain preamp (a few dB) designed to drive a 50-ohm
load efficiently and to overcome the (slight) signal losses in the
coax. Some people seem to favor the grounded-base or grounded-gate
broadband amplifier, as it has a modest gain, can be quite stable, and
has a good resistance to strong-signal overload. You could use a DC
inserter/block system to feed 9-12 volts up the same coax which
carries the signal down.


This is a good idea, though maybe the one I learned and reposted might do
better, it has a very attractive aspect, as it drives a simple speaker wire.
That stuff is cheap, (even the heavy stuff is cheap and durable, I use it
already for solar power..), and effectively forms a very low loss balanced
current loop that is isolated entirely from any current path anywhere else. I
wouldn't even have to bury the feed line, I could likely just run it along
the guide wire in a nearby chainlink fence or whatever is convenient because
it will very effectively reject common mode noise. It might still benefit
from a preamp current driver at the far end but as it uses a low impedance
input at the near end to take care of common mode noise it should be fine,
and a lot easier to get power to.

If you're really concerned about matching the resulting coax-carried
signal to your radio's antenna input, you could wind a fixed-ratio
broadband transformer with the correct impedance ratio.


Might try that, though more as an effort to extend learning than any need.
Right now I'm really glad I asked here because these answers are good, and I
now seem to have a better idea (the vertical long whip and balanced feed and
Norton preamp scheme) than the longwire-and-balun-and-coax I'd originally
intended. I haven't yet verified the new idea but it appears to be from
someone who has demonstrated capability among a group of radio hams, and it
certainly fits with what I know without contraindications, and it would be
much easier to arrange safely and discreetly than any other scheme I've seen.
The author even states permanently retiring his longwires and inverted L's
and so forth in favour of a phased array of two of the vertical whip. I
haven't got the 60 feet of space for the two he specifies, but I think I'll
do ok with one.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
(Dave Platt) wrote in
:

What limits your ability to receive, under these conditions, is band
noise and other spurious signals, which "drown out" the desired
signal. Improving the antenna matching wil have little or no benefit
in dealing with external noise. Neither will a preamp.


Point taken, at least with the matching vs noise. Others have said it
won't
matter much and I see why. preamp might be another issue though,
especially
in light of 'amdx's post:

"http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas/The%20Best%20Small%20Antennas%20For%20M
W,%20LW,%20And%20SW%20rev%202.pdf

The start page for that link is here;
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/dl.htm"

Now, using coax as a way of excluding some of the close-in interferers
isn't a bad idea at all. What you might want to consider doing, is
adding an active buffer at the longwire-to-coax feedpoint...
basically, a low-gain preamp (a few dB) designed to drive a 50-ohm
load efficiently and to overcome the (slight) signal losses in the
coax. Some people seem to favor the grounded-base or grounded-gate
broadband amplifier, as it has a modest gain, can be quite stable, and
has a good resistance to strong-signal overload. You could use a DC
inserter/block system to feed 9-12 volts up the same coax which
carries the signal down.


This is a good idea, though maybe the one I learned and reposted might do
better, it has a very attractive aspect, as it drives a simple speaker
wire.
That stuff is cheap, (even the heavy stuff is cheap and durable, I use it
already for solar power..), and effectively forms a very low loss balanced
current loop that is isolated entirely from any current path anywhere
else. I
wouldn't even have to bury the feed line, I could likely just run it along
the guide wire in a nearby chainlink fence or whatever is convenient
because
it will very effectively reject common mode noise. It might still benefit
from a preamp current driver at the far end but as it uses a low impedance
input at the near end to take care of common mode noise it should be fine,
and a lot easier to get power to.

If you're really concerned about matching the resulting coax-carried
signal to your radio's antenna input, you could wind a fixed-ratio
broadband transformer with the correct impedance ratio.


Might try that, though more as an effort to extend learning than any need.
Right now I'm really glad I asked here because these answers are good, and
I
now seem to have a better idea (the vertical long whip and balanced feed
and
Norton preamp scheme) than the longwire-and-balun-and-coax I'd originally
intended. I haven't yet verified the new idea but it appears to be from
someone who has demonstrated capability among a group of radio hams, and
it
certainly fits with what I know without contraindications, and it would be
much easier to arrange safely and discreetly than any other scheme I've
seen.


The author even states permanently retiring his longwires and inverted L's
and so forth in favour of a phased array of two of the vertical whip.

Yes, I was a little diappointent, I remembered seeing a lot of other
antennas
from Dallas, but they seem to have been removed them from the site. I guess
once
he finds something that works better and is not terribly difficult to make,
he
drops previous setups.
Mike