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