![]() |
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 |
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 |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com