= = = 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