= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:55:58 -0700, "CW" no adddress@spam free.com
wrote:

When I made my prior comments about the lack of
consideration given to receive antenna, I was referring to the antenna
group. I didn't realize that the message was cross posted. It just amazes me
that they will debate a transmitting antenna to minute detail but receiving
antennas deserve no consideration other than a random piece of wire thrown
into a tree.

Hi OM,

As generalizations go, this one falls short with them all.

We here at rec.radio.amateur.antenna often recite the credo that
"reciprocity rules." This means that all considerations given to a
transmitting antenna are equally applied to receiving antennas.

However, I am sure you are responding to the disparity in coverage
between receiving and transmitting antennas - and this is for good
reason. Reception and Transmission are NOT reciprocal operations. A
receiver has far more latitude to accomplish its goal than does a
transmitter. Unless you have an abysmal receiver poorly connected to
an inadequate whip, the stock receiver with a simple length of wire is
often very close to doing a good job. If the receiver suffers from
any of a multitude of issues, there is generally a solution that
answers the problem specifically. About the only thing you can do for
the transmitter is to turn up the power, or lower the transmission
loss. It stands to reason that our focus is on optimizing the loss
side of the balance ledger.

Returning to the credo of "reciprocity rules," any gain to the
advantage of a transmitter is enjoyed by the receiver and the SWLer
stands the same advantage. But if that advantage is measured at 3dB,
this has the significance of 50W in 100W compared to the SWL S-Meter
change from S5 to S6 (BFD). Even though it is the same 3dB, there is
the illusion of perspective (my 50W compared to your 5µV). If the SW
station is buried in S9 noise, then this is not an antenna problem
(unless you can null the noise out through careful lobe positioning).
Filtering and/or DSP stand to answer the problem, but these are
obviously not remedies to transmission issues.

There is another thread discussing the goal of constructing a small
loop for 80M reception (and how well 5 turns might achieve some
benefit). The same issues of loss prevail for the comparison of
Radiation Resistance to Ohmic Resistance for a 1 Meter loop. The loop
Rr is in the thousandths of an Ohm and about on par for a small wire's
Ohmic loss. There's that 3dB again and what concerns the transmission
efficiency is far easier to tolerate with the receiver and its surplus
of gain. If the SWLer pays attention to this issue as it concerns the
transmission problems, then that SWLer stands to gain in the
efficiency returned. However, this is not to suggest that there is an
actual need to obtain this efficiency; but if the SWLer mismanages the
construction, the topic is discussed to the necessary depth to correct
it.

A simple basis of comparison will illustrate. Many SW radios have a
ferrite stick antenna that will work with at least some stations (VOA,
WWV, BBC and a host of others). Try transmitting through that same
ferrite stick and it will be like trying to shout through a straw.
Our only alternative is to add an amp, but the big KW is only going to
render smoke.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.
- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.
- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

iane ~ RHF
..
Shortwave Listeners (SWL) AM/FM Antennas eGroup on YAHOO !
SWL-ANTENNA= http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortwave-SWL-Antenna/
..

On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

Richard Clark plaatste dit op zijn scherm :
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

Richard Clark plaatste dit op zijn scherm :
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

rofl
Mark


Na rijp beraad schreef Gert-Jan Dam PG0G :
Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt zijn
bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de aanwinstenknop van rf
doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency. Dit toont niet aan één of
andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook
en spiegels als argument. Omkerend het argument, als u een volledige met maat
antenne voor die band had, zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat
bakkebaard nodig hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX
zou u slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere efficiency te
compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor technisch uitgeput wie
eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope
oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart dat dit niet een goedkoop schot,
zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten welk eind van de soldeerbout om één
van beiden op te nemen.

'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

rofl
Mark


Na rijp beraad schreef Gert-Jan Dam PG0G :
Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
Richard Clark had uiteengezet :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:13:35 +0200, Mark1
wrote:

Zeg hallo, dit is een Nederlandse nieuwsgroep hoor :-P

probeer de vertaaldiensten van bable vissen bij
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL, we zien hoe goed de vertaalmachine werkt (not)

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt zijn
bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de aanwinstenknop van rf
doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency. Dit toont niet aan één of
andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook
en spiegels als argument. Omkerend het argument, als u een volledige met maat
antenne voor die band had, zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat
bakkebaard nodig hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX
zou u slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere efficiency te
compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor technisch uitgeput wie
eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope
oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart dat dit niet een goedkoop schot,
zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten welk eind van de soldeerbout om één
van beiden op te nemen.

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

Hi OM,

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Dit even ter illustratie...Tis niet te lezen.

Dergelijke voorbeelden van kleine lijnen die voor MF worden gebruikt
zijn bewijspositief hoe armen een antenne kan zijn, en de de
aanwinstenknop van rf doend herleven zijn meelijwekkende efficiency.
Dit toont niet aan één of andere illusie van meerdere antenneontwerp
ontvangt; eerder is het meer rook en spiegels als argument. Omkerend
het argument, als u een volledige met maat antenne voor die band had,
zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig
hebben om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven hallo-z. Voor DX zou u
slechts een $5 AF versterker nodig hebben. De kleinere antenne vergt
duidelijk meer dollars besteed om debilities van de slechtere
efficiency te compenseren. Het specious argument wordt gemaakt voor
technisch uitgeput wie eerder een creditcard over de vertoningsteller
dan bouwt hun eigen goedkope oplossing zou duwen. Neem eenvoudig hart
dat dit niet een goedkoop schot, zijn er zo vele Hammen die don't weten
welk eind van de soldeerbout om één van beiden op te nemen.

Hi OM,

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:13:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

Mijn fout toen. De kortere zinnen zijn nodig.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:13:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

Mijn fout toen. De kortere zinnen zijn nodig.

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

Ik zal eens van een bakkebaard van een kat en wat loodglans een diode
maken hi.

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

Ik zal eens van een bakkebaard van een kat en wat loodglans een diode
maken hi.

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;
but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;
but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:29:31 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

Of course it is: nl.radio.amateur
This is an amateur antenna discussion. This discussion originated
from this group (nl.radio.amateur). If this is a mistake, take it up
with the original poster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:29:31 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

Of course it is: nl.radio.amateur
This is an amateur antenna discussion. This discussion originated
from this group (nl.radio.amateur). If this is a mistake, take it up
with the original poster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 29 Jun 2004 11:30:01 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Strange logic to offer that a listener comes here to post a query they
will ignore in anticipation. Rather self serving argument isn't it?

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

There is nothing in this statement that distinguishes amateur from
listener. Further, it contains absolutely no technical material to
support any sense of this exclusivity of concern. To respond in kind,
you don't even rise to amateur status.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;

Now this is a statement that is clearly in error. The archives will
attest to this.

but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As they are no more or less for a listener. If you find some other
motivation, it is strictly your own prejudice.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

Perhaps you should attend this board more often to learn the
fundamentals. There is no impediment to hearing any Radio Station out
there from any direction with simple verticals. SW sets come with
them you know.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

So why are you posting to an amateur group? Why an antenna group?
You would be better served through your self-imposed limitations by
staying out of the fast lane.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, WPE0EPH

p.s. if the WPE0EPH is unknown to you, it denotes my having been a
Shortwave listener for 40 years and registered with the Popular
Electronics DX club (as well as a sack full of others from around the
world).

On 29 Jun 2004 11:30:01 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Strange logic to offer that a listener comes here to post a query they
will ignore in anticipation. Rather self serving argument isn't it?

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

There is nothing in this statement that distinguishes amateur from
listener. Further, it contains absolutely no technical material to
support any sense of this exclusivity of concern. To respond in kind,
you don't even rise to amateur status.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;

Now this is a statement that is clearly in error. The archives will
attest to this.

but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As they are no more or less for a listener. If you find some other
motivation, it is strictly your own prejudice.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

Perhaps you should attend this board more often to learn the
fundamentals. There is no impediment to hearing any Radio Station out
there from any direction with simple verticals. SW sets come with
them you know.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

So why are you posting to an amateur group? Why an antenna group?
You would be better served through your self-imposed limitations by
staying out of the fast lane.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, WPE0EPH

p.s. if the WPE0EPH is unknown to you, it denotes my having been a
Shortwave listener for 40 years and registered with the Popular
Electronics DX club (as well as a sack full of others from around the
world).

Richard Clark beweerde :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben
om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Translation, : it from it cat-sideburn and leadshine cristal is the old
components of the timedetector. The sideburn of the cat is fine thread.

And so on.
So pse remove this group from future postings.

Richard Clark beweerde :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben
om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma :D

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Translation, : it from it cat-sideburn and leadshine cristal is the old
components of the timedetector. The sideburn of the cat is fine thread.

And so on.
So pse remove this group from future postings.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2004 11:30:01 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:............................................ ..............
So why are you posting to an amateur group? Why an antenna group?
You would be better served through your self-imposed limitations by
staying out of the fast lane.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, WPE0EPH

p.s. if the WPE0EPH is unknown to you, it denotes my having been a
Shortwave listener for 40 years and registered with the Popular
Electronics DX club (as well as a sack full of others from around the
world).

Richard,
Probably to a lot of people a radio or electronic hobbyist is an "amateur".
Impression I get is that some CBers think so also. From looking at old
literature, the search for the holy grail of a noise free antenna, seems to
back to around T=0. It would help, if the manufacturers of SWL receivers
would add noise blankers in sub $500 radios. I did not see any in the AES
catalog below that price that claimed to have a noise blanker. I won't even
delve on IF filter shape factor.

ps. I can beat your 40 years by about 10.

Tam/WB2TT

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2004 11:30:01 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:............................................ ..............
So why are you posting to an amateur group? Why an antenna group?
You would be better served through your self-imposed limitations by
staying out of the fast lane.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, WPE0EPH

p.s. if the WPE0EPH is unknown to you, it denotes my having been a
Shortwave listener for 40 years and registered with the Popular
Electronics DX club (as well as a sack full of others from around the
world).

Richard,
Probably to a lot of people a radio or electronic hobbyist is an "amateur".
Impression I get is that some CBers think so also. From looking at old
literature, the search for the holy grail of a noise free antenna, seems to
back to around T=0. It would help, if the manufacturers of SWL receivers
would add noise blankers in sub $500 radios. I did not see any in the AES
catalog below that price that claimed to have a noise blanker. I won't even
delve on IF filter shape factor.

ps. I can beat your 40 years by about 10.

Tam/WB2TT

Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks
up radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also
troublesome, particularly common mode on the transmission line. This
tends to be the way that locally generated noise from household gadgets
gets into an antenna system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in
common mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your
transceiver, rides out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples
back through differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very
efficient coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still
get 10 nW to the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30
MHz, it's still 10 uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a
very serious quantity of noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss
means it only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to
interfere with its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences*
are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its
not generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue.
Gain is cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient
*steerable* MW antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones
often overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to
spend the dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's
good engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my
inverted-L's, I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of
effective bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams,
but is very useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility
of a modern receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible
consequence at HF and below if your receiver has a decent noise figure.
I've never seen mention of this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham
literature, but it's not hard to find in the professional literature.
For details of a specific calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks
up radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also
troublesome, particularly common mode on the transmission line. This
tends to be the way that locally generated noise from household gadgets
gets into an antenna system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in
common mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your
transceiver, rides out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples
back through differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very
efficient coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still
get 10 nW to the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30
MHz, it's still 10 uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a
very serious quantity of noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss
means it only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to
interfere with its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences*
are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its
not generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue.
Gain is cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient
*steerable* MW antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones
often overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to
spend the dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's
good engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my
inverted-L's, I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of
effective bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams,
but is very useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility
of a modern receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible
consequence at HF and below if your receiver has a decent noise figure.
I've never seen mention of this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham
literature, but it's not hard to find in the professional literature.
For details of a specific calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

pse remove the nl newsgroup from this discussion.


John Doty schreef op 29-6-04 :
Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks up
radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also troublesome,
particularly common mode on the transmission line. This tends to be the way
that locally generated noise from household gadgets gets into an antenna
system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in common
mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your transceiver, rides
out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples back through
differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very efficient
coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still get 10 nW to
the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30 MHz, it's still 10
uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a very serious quantity of
noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss means it
only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to interfere with
its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences* are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its not
generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue. Gain is
cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient *steerable* MW
antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones often
overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to spend the
dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's good
engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my inverted-L's,
I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of effective
bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams, but is very
useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility of a modern
receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible consequence at HF and
below if your receiver has a decent noise figure. I've never seen mention of
this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham literature, but it's not hard
to find in the professional literature. For details of a specific
calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

pse remove the nl newsgroup from this discussion.


John Doty schreef op 29-6-04 :
Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks up
radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also troublesome,
particularly common mode on the transmission line. This tends to be the way
that locally generated noise from household gadgets gets into an antenna
system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in common
mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your transceiver, rides
out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples back through
differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very efficient
coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still get 10 nW to
the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30 MHz, it's still 10
uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a very serious quantity of
noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss means it
only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to interfere with
its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences* are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its not
generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue. Gain is
cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient *steerable* MW
antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones often
overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to spend the
dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's good
engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my inverted-L's,
I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of effective
bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams, but is very
useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility of a modern
receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible consequence at HF and
below if your receiver has a decent noise figure. I've never seen mention of
this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham literature, but it's not hard
to find in the professional literature. For details of a specific
calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:34:42 -0600, John Doty
wrote:

You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks
up radiated modes.

I am making no such assumption and all following commentary does
absolutely nothing to separate the concerns of SWLers from Ham
activity.

Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also
troublesome, particularly common mode on the transmission line. This
tends to be the way that locally generated noise from household gadgets
gets into an antenna system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in
common mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your
transceiver, rides out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples
back through differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very
efficient coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still
get 10 nW to the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30
MHz, it's still 10 uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a
very serious quantity of noise.

Let's work with exactly that scenario you offered.

S6 (Calibrated) on my Drake TR-7 is -88dBm - so close to your 10µV to
be indistinguishable. My TS-430 varies from -80dBm to -73dBm. There
is no calibrated S-Meter for my DX-440, but for a $200 SW set, its
sensitivity is -90dBm for a full scale meter indication (about 7dB
range from top to bottom).

All very well and good. Now if we regard this speculation of 10mW (it
is, after all, the epitome of a wild ass guess, isn't it?); then,
let's reverse engineer that 10nW product from 6kHz buckets over the
range of 30MHz to find 50µW which is 23dB below the original power
presumably suppressed 60dB. Well, I have either pencil-whipped you,
or you me, or each other - the numbers don't add up. Hardly matters
given the original specification had no basis in fact.

However, if I return to the original "problem" of noise derived from
household sources; then that is also something I have closely
measured.

Across time, frequency, antennas, and known noise sources I have found
it as low as S1 for my longwire (an antenna supposedly unused by Hams)
to as high as S7 (for that same longwire). My loops, dipoles and
verticals hardly fell outside of this range to present any gilt-edge
design.

With every circuit in the house broken (operating battery power in the
dark), average noise level was either S2 for a vertical, or S1 to S3
for a loop (rather upsetting the voodoo of loops being quiet and
verticals being noisy). When I returned power to the house by stages,
I insured every opportunity of injecting noise by setting dimmers to
their worst position (about 50%). In the low bands, I suffered as
much as S8 noise levels with an average of S5 when the house was full
lit (also including fluorescents) and all noise sources adding to the
cacophony of reception. This was for a loop antenna.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss
means it only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to
interfere with its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences*
are symmetrical.

This effect of reciprocity has been reported so frequently in this
group so as to negate your premise. We have many queries for how to
solve this problem.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its
not generally useful for transmission.

This really goes off the deep edge. Barring loss introduced for the
sake of jimmying the logic, transmitters AND receivers enjoy the GAIN
derived from the introduction of a null not otherwise part of the
characteristic. This is a commonplace of theory and practice. Where
ever you can design or contribute to a null; then this must of
necessity result in an increase in signal outside of its region.
These are all commonplace observations discussed here that are
observable for either Ham or SWL operations. There is NO differential
offered in these observations that separate SWL from Ham activities.

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue.

I believe I have said that at least 3 to 5 times already.

Gain is cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient
*steerable* MW antenna is enormous and expensive.

Who needs an efficient MW antenna?

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones
often overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to
spend the dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

All of $20 if you have any technical capacity. Otherwise push the
credit card across the display counter and spend as much as they can
sell you. This argument is like driving your car into the shop to get
the air changed in your tires every 100 miles.

Again, front end overload is a very common complaint offered here by
SWLers who are then advised in how to simply AND cheaply combat this
problem.

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

Sure, what is so remarkable about that? Beyond this simple design,
ever hear of a super-Regen receiver? You don't need to spend half a
kilo-buck to get the same sensitivity and filtering is dirt cheap.
How about Q-multipliers? All such topics barely spread the wallet as
much as the illusion of more buttons make a better rig.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's
good engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my
inverted-L's, I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of
effective bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams,
but is very useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility
of a modern receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible
consequence at HF and below if your receiver has a decent noise figure.

As I pointed out to Yahoo, if you choose to cripple yourself, then
slide on over to the shoulder and enjoy kicking up dust and rocks as
you travel down the road. a 4dB loss for an inverted L (hardly a SW
invention) is far too simple to remedy to make its suffering a boast
of martyrdom. It is a strange argument to offer that you can't afford
a $20 solution for your $500 set and $2 worth of wire.

I've never seen mention of this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham
literature,

You haven't looked. Either contrived, wholly fictional, or accurately
represented, it is part of the stock in trade for selling antennas.
In this group, I would wager its discussion consumes more bandwidth
than bragging about how many QSL cards have been pasted to the wall.

but it's not hard to find in the professional literature.
For details of a specific calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

It would do you well to note that this "professional" whom you rely
upon, John Kraus, is one of the most notable Ham Radio Operators
frequently acknowledged and referred to here.

Do you or others have any actual differentiable discussion, or is this
simply an outlet for appoligia for why it isn't worth the strain to
lift a soldering iron when you can bench press a credit card?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC