In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:


Billy Burpelson wrote:

RHF wrote:

FWIW - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise
Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Doty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bc6a2bf8acc12d
Well, "John Doty" in the reference above says:

Any *unshielded* [my emphasis added] conductor in your antenna/ground
system is capable
of picking up noise: the antenna, the "lead-in" wire...
First of all, isn't the "lead-in wire" (coaxial cable in this
discussion) -shielded- ? So according to his -own- statement, coax
shouldn't have to be buried, at least from a noise mitigation viewpoint.

Doty continues:

You can keep noise currents away from the antenna by giving them
a path to ground near the house, giving antenna currents a path to
ground away from the house, and burying the the coaxial cable from
the house to the antenna.

In the 1930s, Bell Laboratories, while investigating power line
influence on telephone cables, proved that burial had NO effect on noise
being induced into the telephone cables; i.e., 20 feet of aerial
separation, from a noise standpoint, was exactly the same as 18 feet of
aerial separation plus being buried 2 feet deep.

Hmmm...should I believe "John Doty" or Bell Labs? You're a smart guy --
I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. :-)

dxAce wrote:

Or, you might believe the 1990's rather than the 1930's :-)

Well, I don't know about the "1990's" (isn't this the 2000s?), but it
became a big issue in the 30s due to the rapidly expanding
electrification of America.

In any event, I'm sure that even the most superficial research on your
part will show that the applicable Laws of Physics have not changed
since then.

I do not see where you are elucidating on the subject bozo.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

RHF wrote:

Undeniable Fact # 1 - The Man Made RFI-EMF Environment
Has Changed Greatly : Increasing one or two Magnitudes from
the 1930s to the 1990s.

Undeniable Fact # 2 - Man's Ability to Accurately Measure the
RFI-EMF Environment and It's Effects Has Changed Greatly :
Increasing at least a Magnitude from the 1930s to the 1990s.

Undeniable Fact # 3 - According to a direct quote of Doty, UN-shielded
lead-in wires are susceptible to noise. Coaxial cable is SHIELDED. So
why does Doty say bury it?

Undeniable Fact # 4 - Even though the RFI environment has changed and
even though man's ability to measure it has changed, burial in a few
inches of soil provides no noise mitigation.

Undeniable Fact # 5 - Yes, the environment has changed and measurement
techniques have changed, but that does NOT mean the Laws of Physics have
changed.

Finally, for the sake of this discussion, assume your
neighbor/neighborhood is throwing out a lot of RF hash and trash.
Furthermore, let us assume you've buried your coax in hopes of
alleviating the problem (even though it won't).

What, pray tell, is to keep this neighborhood RF hash and trash from
impinging directly on the antenna itself and being piped right in to
your receiver?

-If you need to avoid the lawn mower, bury by all means.

-If you need to avoid the wrath of your wife, bury by all means.

-If you want to bury to mitigate noise, save your time, trouble and energy.

In article , Billy
Burpelson wrote:

RHF wrote:

FWIW - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise Shortwave
Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Doty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bc6a2bf8acc12d


Well, "John Doty" in the reference above says:

Any *unshielded* [my emphasis added] conductor in your
antenna/ground system is capable of picking up noise: the
antenna, the "lead-in" wire...

First of all, isn't the "lead-in wire" (coaxial cable in this
discussion) -shielded- ? So according to his -own- statement, coax
shouldn't have to be buried, at least from a noise mitigation
viewpoint.

Doty continues:

You can keep noise currents away from the antenna by giving them
a path to ground near the house, giving antenna currents a path
to ground away from the house, and burying the the coaxial cable
from the house to the antenna.

In the 1930s, Bell Laboratories, while investigating power line
influence on telephone cables, proved that burial had NO effect on
noise being induced into the telephone cables; i.e., 20 feet of
aerial separation, from a noise standpoint, was exactly the same as
18 feet of aerial separation plus being buried 2 feet deep.

Hmmm...should I believe "John Doty" or Bell Labs? You're a smart
guy -- I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. :-)

Telamon wrote:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your arguments above don't you
think you should be able to come up with your own explanations and
understandings on the subject?

Let's examine what you just said above.

You want me to re-invent the wheel, re-plow the same ground and
duplicate the work already done by the PhDs at Bell Labs?

To put it another way, you imply it's OK for RHF to quote "John Doty"
but that it's not OK for me to quote Bell Labs. This is one of your more
brilliant comments, Sparky.

Why should we read you posts...

Nobody is forcing you, Sparky.

...when we can just go read the person you reference?

If you -don't- read my post, how would you know what person I am
referencing? Again, positively brilliant of you, Sparky.

In any event, the Bell System Practices (BSPs) addressing this issue,
still in use to this very day, are proprietary. However, I imagine you
could reference the public 'Bell System Technical Journal' issues of the
era. And, yes, please DO read the "person" I reference (although the
Bell Labs are not "a person"). You will then find that what I say is true.

You think you somehow improve the information?

Please point out where I ever said or implied anything about "improving"
the information. I simply quoted the applicable work done by Bell Labs.
Period. There's just no end to your brilliance, Sparky.

I think reading your posts are a waste of time.

So why did you read it, hmmmm? A sign of mental illness is repeating the
same mistake.

And suit yourself, Sparky...you can always fall back on your time tested
Plonks. ;-)

Billy Burpelson wrote:

In article , Billy
Burpelson wrote:

RHF wrote:

FWIW - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise Shortwave
Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Doty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bc6a2bf8acc12d


Well, "John Doty" in the reference above says:

Any *unshielded* [my emphasis added] conductor in your
antenna/ground system is capable of picking up noise: the
antenna, the "lead-in" wire...

First of all, isn't the "lead-in wire" (coaxial cable in this
discussion) -shielded- ? So according to his -own- statement, coax
shouldn't have to be buried, at least from a noise mitigation
viewpoint.

Doty continues:

You can keep noise currents away from the antenna by giving them
a path to ground near the house, giving antenna currents a path
to ground away from the house, and burying the the coaxial cable
from the house to the antenna.

In the 1930s, Bell Laboratories, while investigating power line
influence on telephone cables, proved that burial had NO effect on
noise being induced into the telephone cables; i.e., 20 feet of
aerial separation, from a noise standpoint, was exactly the same as
18 feet of aerial separation plus being buried 2 feet deep.

Hmmm...should I believe "John Doty" or Bell Labs? You're a smart
guy -- I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. :-)

Telamon wrote:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your arguments above don't you
think you should be able to come up with your own explanations and
understandings on the subject?

Let's examine what you just said above.

You want me to re-invent the wheel, re-plow the same ground and
duplicate the work already done by the PhDs at Bell Labs?

To put it another way, you imply it's OK for RHF to quote "John Doty"
but that it's not OK for me to quote Bell Labs. This is one of your more
brilliant comments, Sparky.

Why should we read you posts...

Nobody is forcing you, Sparky.

...when we can just go read the person you reference?

If you -don't- read my post, how would you know what person I am
referencing? Again, positively brilliant of you, Sparky.

In any event, the Bell System Practices (BSPs) addressing this issue,
still in use to this very day, are proprietary. However, I imagine you
could reference the public 'Bell System Technical Journal' issues of the
era. And, yes, please DO read the "person" I reference (although the
Bell Labs are not "a person"). You will then find that what I say is true.

You think you somehow improve the information?

Please point out where I ever said or implied anything about "improving"
the information. I simply quoted the applicable work done by Bell Labs.
Period. There's just no end to your brilliance, Sparky.

I think reading your posts are a waste of time.

So why did you read it, hmmmm? A sign of mental illness is repeating the
same mistake.

And suit yourself, Sparky...you can always fall back on your time tested
Plonks. ;-)

My question: Why do you talk just like David Rickets?

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Or, you might believe the 1990's rather than the 1930's :-)


Looking at the opposite side, that of the way coax is used at the
transmission end, there are a number of relevant situations.

AM broadcast stations using series fed towers (those with an antenna tuning
unit to couple to the tower right above the base insulator) generally bury
the coax that feeds the ATU and tower. The reason is not for any kind of
additional isolation or insulation, but to keep the cable where falling ice
from the tower or guys, storm debris (in hurricane areas, particularly)
can't hit it, and to make it safer from vandalism.

Buried cable installs are also cheaper than the preferred system, which is a
set of poles, metal or wood, above the ground, with a metal bar or roof
above it to prevent ice damage. The advantage of above ground is that the
cable is accessible for repair or replacement in case of internal arcing and
more immune to digging by morons from the telco or electric utility.

Generally, the decision to bury is one of cost, not of RF.

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Billy Burpelson wrote:

In article , Billy
Burpelson wrote:

RHF wrote:

FWIW - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise Shortwave
Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Doty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bc6a2bf8acc12d


Well, "John Doty" in the reference above says:

Any *unshielded* [my emphasis added] conductor in your
antenna/ground system is capable of picking up noise: the
antenna, the "lead-in" wire...

First of all, isn't the "lead-in wire" (coaxial cable in this
discussion) -shielded- ? So according to his -own- statement, coax
shouldn't have to be buried, at least from a noise mitigation
viewpoint.

Doty continues:

You can keep noise currents away from the antenna by giving them
a path to ground near the house, giving antenna currents a path
to ground away from the house, and burying the the coaxial cable
from the house to the antenna.

In the 1930s, Bell Laboratories, while investigating power line
influence on telephone cables, proved that burial had NO effect on
noise being induced into the telephone cables; i.e., 20 feet of
aerial separation, from a noise standpoint, was exactly the same as
18 feet of aerial separation plus being buried 2 feet deep.

Hmmm...should I believe "John Doty" or Bell Labs? You're a smart
guy -- I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. :-)

Telamon wrote:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your arguments above don't you
think you should be able to come up with your own explanations and
understandings on the subject?

Let's examine what you just said above.

You want me to re-invent the wheel, re-plow the same ground and
duplicate the work already done by the PhDs at Bell Labs?

To put it another way, you imply it's OK for RHF to quote "John Doty"
but that it's not OK for me to quote Bell Labs. This is one of your more
brilliant comments, Sparky.

Why should we read you posts...

Nobody is forcing you, Sparky.

...when we can just go read the person you reference?

If you -don't- read my post, how would you know what person I am
referencing? Again, positively brilliant of you, Sparky.

In any event, the Bell System Practices (BSPs) addressing this issue,
still in use to this very day, are proprietary. However, I imagine you
could reference the public 'Bell System Technical Journal' issues of the
era. And, yes, please DO read the "person" I reference (although the
Bell Labs are not "a person"). You will then find that what I say is true.

You think you somehow improve the information?

Please point out where I ever said or implied anything about "improving"
the information. I simply quoted the applicable work done by Bell Labs.
Period. There's just no end to your brilliance, Sparky.

I think reading your posts are a waste of time.

So why did you read it, hmmmm? A sign of mental illness is repeating the
same mistake.

And suit yourself, Sparky...you can always fall back on your time tested
Plonks. ;-)

My question: Why do you talk just like David Rickets?

Probably uses the same drugs.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

In article , Billy
Burpelson wrote:

RHF wrote:

FWIW - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise Shortwave
Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Doty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...bc6a2bf8acc12d


Well, "John Doty" in the reference above says:

Any *unshielded* [my emphasis added] conductor in your
antenna/ground system is capable of picking up noise: the
antenna, the "lead-in" wire...

First of all, isn't the "lead-in wire" (coaxial cable in this
discussion) -shielded- ? So according to his -own- statement, coax
shouldn't have to be buried, at least from a noise mitigation
viewpoint.

Doty continues:

You can keep noise currents away from the antenna by giving them
a path to ground near the house, giving antenna currents a path
to ground away from the house, and burying the the coaxial cable
from the house to the antenna.

In the 1930s, Bell Laboratories, while investigating power line
influence on telephone cables, proved that burial had NO effect on
noise being induced into the telephone cables; i.e., 20 feet of
aerial separation, from a noise standpoint, was exactly the same as
18 feet of aerial separation plus being buried 2 feet deep.

Hmmm...should I believe "John Doty" or Bell Labs? You're a smart
guy -- I'll let you figure that one out for yourself. :-)

Telamon wrote:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your arguments above don't you
think you should be able to come up with your own explanations and
understandings on the subject?

Let's examine what you just said above.

You want me to re-invent the wheel, re-plow the same ground and
duplicate the work already done by the PhDs at Bell Labs?

To put it another way, you imply it's OK for RHF to quote "John Doty"
but that it's not OK for me to quote Bell Labs. This is one of your more
brilliant comments, Sparky.

No, just put it in your own words. See by putting theory, concepts, and
ideas in your own words maybe you could impart greater understanding for
people reading your posts.

And no I don't think it's OK for RHF or anyone else to do this.

Why should we read you posts...

Nobody is forcing you, Sparky.

Who said I was forced?

...when we can just go read the person you reference?

If you -don't- read my post, how would you know what person I am
referencing? Again, positively brilliant of you, Sparky.

Oh clueless one.

There was nothing in your own words just the references. Again your
posts are not worth reading. You add no information, you did not use the
referenced information in the context of the thread, you did not explain
how the referenced information is relevant to the questions raised in
the thread.

In any event, the Bell System Practices (BSPs) addressing this issue,
still in use to this very day, are proprietary. However, I imagine you
could reference the public 'Bell System Technical Journal' issues of the
era. And, yes, please DO read the "person" I reference (although the
Bell Labs are not "a person"). You will then find that what I say is true.

You think you somehow improve the information?

Please point out where I ever said or implied anything about "improving"
the information. I simply quoted the applicable work done by Bell Labs.
Period. There's just no end to your brilliance, Sparky.

You don't understand the concept of putting ideas into your own words?
All you can do is regurgitate? I guess that means you don't understand
the material you post about.

I think reading your posts are a waste of time.

So why did you read it, hmmmm? A sign of mental illness is repeating the
same mistake.

I'm an optimist. It was my thought you would get a clue. I guess not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

David Frackelton Gleason, hit the ground running in 2008 and decided to continue
posing as 'Eduardo', who wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

Or, you might believe the 1990's rather than the 1930's :-)


Looking at the opposite side, that of the way coax is used at the
transmission end, there are a number of relevant situations.

AM broadcast stations using series fed towers (those with an antenna tuning
unit to couple to the tower right above the base insulator) generally bury
the coax that feeds the ATU and tower. The reason is not for any kind of
additional isolation or insulation, but to keep the cable where falling ice
from the tower or guys, storm debris (in hurricane areas, particularly)
can't hit it, and to make it safer from vandalism.

Buried cable installs are also cheaper than the preferred system, which is a
set of poles, metal or wood, above the ground, with a metal bar or roof
above it to prevent ice damage. The advantage of above ground is that the
cable is accessible for repair or replacement in case of internal arcing and
more immune to digging by morons from the telco or electric utility.

Generally, the decision to bury is one of cost, not of RF.

Generally, the decision to pose as a faux Hispanic is one of idiocy, not of
sanity.

On Jan 5, 11:53*pm, RHF wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:25*pm, Carter-k8vt wrote:

RHF wrote:
Undeniable Fact # 1 - The Man Made RFI-EMF Environment
Has Changed Greatly : Increasing one or two Magnitudes from
the 1930s to the 1990s.

Undeniable Fact # 2 - Man's Ability to Accurately Measure the
RFI-EMF Environment and It's Effects Has Changed Greatly :
Increasing at least a Magnitude from the 1930s to the 1990s.

- Undeniable Fact # 3 - According to a direct quote of Doty,
- UN-shielded lead-in wires are susceptible to noise.
- Coaxial cable is SHIELDED. So why does Doty say bury it?

Fact is most Coax Cable does not have a perfect Shield.

- Undeniable Fact # 4 - Even though the RFI environment has
- changed and even though man's ability to measure it has
- changed, burial in a few inches of soil provides no noise
- mitigation.

You provide no Empirical Data to dispute my Anecdotal Observations.

- Undeniable Fact # 5 - Yes, the environment has changed and
- measurement techniques have changed, but that does NOT
- mean the Laws of Physics have changed.

I would have to conclude that 'our' knowledge of the Laws of
Physics has improve from 1930s to 1990s.

- Finally, for the sake of this discussion, assume your neighbor/
- neighborhood is throwing out a lot of RF hash and trash.
- Furthermore, let us assume you've buried your coax in hopes
- of alleviating the problem (even though it won't).
-
- What, pray tell, is to keep this neighborhood RF hash and
- trash from impinging directly on the antenna itself and being
- piped right in to your receiver?

Nothing -but- that's the Antenna itself -and- at least it ain't the
Coax Cable feed-in-line; acting as a Noise Pick-Up Antenna.

- -If you need to avoid the lawn mower, bury by all means.

Good Point.

- -If you need to avoid the wrath of your wife, bury by all means.

She Who Must Be Obeyed - Must Be Happy Too !

- -If you want to bury to mitigate noise, save your time, trouble and
energy.

Alas it is 'my' Time and Money and to 'me' it is Worth-the-Trouble :
To Do It Right !

Oops You Forgot : # 2 - Dang - See # 1 + Safety - It's a Tripping
Hazard.

KEY POINT - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise
Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty

1 - At the Antenna using a Matching Transformer between the
Antenna Element and the Coax Cable feed-in-line. {The Far-End}

2 - Plus a Ground Rod at this Matching Transformer.

3 - Near the entry to the House using an Isolation Transformer
between the Coax Cable feed-in-line and Coax Cable going
into the House to the RadioShack. {The Near-End}

4 - Plus a Ground Rod at the Isolation Transformer.

5 - Bury the Coax Cable feed-in-line between the Two Ground
Rods and Transformers.

Number "5" is realy only important when you have first
accomplished Numbers 1~4.

Effectively the Outer-Shield of the Coax Cable is :
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
etc...

Three Rec.Radio.Shortwave Messages to Read -by- John Dotyhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1abc6a2bf8acc12d
* SWL Longwire
* Low Noise Antenna Connection
* Grounding Is Key To Good Reception

John Doty will tell you that he did not Invent any of these things
or Uniquely Combine them to Create a New Concept. *He more
or less studied what was out-there and empirically tried things
until he found what seemed to Work : "The Best". *He Wrote about
them; and Help to Popularize them in the 1990s in the Shortwave
Radio Listening (SWL) community. *As far as I know he makes
no claim that any one of these things will work by itself -but- as
a group they do improve things greatly over a simple Classic
Horizontal Bare Wire Antenna with an Insulated Wire feed-in-line
-or- an Improved Horizontal Bare Wire Antenna with a Coax Cable
feed-in-line.

step-by-step - one-step-at-a-time - the endless quest for
better shortwave radio listening (swl) - iane ~ RHF
*.

KEY POINT - Burying the Coax Cable is simply one of the many
Synergistic Elements that goes into making a Low Noise
Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna -a-la- John Doty


1 - At the Antenna using a Matching Transformer between the
Antenna Element and the Coax Cable feed-in-line. {The Far-End}


2 - Plus a Ground Rod at this Matching Transformer.


3 - Near the entry to the House using an Isolation Transformer
between the Coax Cable feed-in-line and Coax Cable going
into the House to the RadioShack. {The Near-End}


4 - Plus a Ground Rod at the Isolation Transformer.


5 - Bury the Coax Cable feed-in-line between the Two Ground
Rods and Transformers.


Number "5" is realy only important when you have first
accomplished Numbers 1~4.


Effectively the Outer-Shield of the Coax Cable is/does :

# 1 - Connects both the Antenna Ground and the House's
Feed-in-Line Entry Ground {RadioShack Grounding Point} :
-Thus- "Bonding" these two Grounds.

2-
3-
4-
5-
etc...

Telamon wrote:

I do not see where you are elucidating on the subject bozo.


I see you've become as obnoxious as the Acehole. Too bad...I used to
think you were relatively intelligent.






mike