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).