|
Ham Radio Outlet sells the good stuff by the foot ( RG6 vs RG8X)
5) Manufacturer: BELDEN
Item : RG-8X Description : #9258 MINIATURE COAX YOUR HRO PRICE $0.69 Additional information : Sold by the foot - please specify quantity - up to a max cont length of 1000' Stock status: In-Stock-Item http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncg...elden&MAX=250& |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cablesfor Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
On Dec 31, 5:44 am, David wrote:
- Ham Radio Outlet sells the good stuff by the foot ( RG6 vs RG8X) - - 5) Manufacturer: BELDEN - Item : RG-8X - Description : #9258 MINIATURE COAX - YOUR HRO PRICE $0.69 - Additional information : - Sold by the foot - please specify quantity - up to a max cont length of - 1000' - Stock status: In-Stock-Item - - http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncg...elden&MAX=250& - David, The BURY-FLEX (TM) that is offered by the Davis RF Co. is also pretty good stuff too. ~ RHF http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#buryflex -But- It Too Is Over Kill For Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) "Receive Only" Antennas. ? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna feed-in-lines ? Practically Speaking Coax Cable Attenuation and Cost : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation For a "Receive Only" Shortwave Radio Listener's (SWL) Coax Cable feed-in-line RG6 Coax Cable still has a lower dB Loss per 100 Feet then RG8 and about 1/3rd the Loss of RG58 Coax Cable measured at 10 MHz. http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#attenuation Plus most of the time RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable will Cost-U-Less then RG8 & RG58 Single-Shield Coax Cable. The Key Characteristic that both RG8 and RG58 Coax Cables have over RG6 Coax Cable is that the Outer-Shield is "Copper Braid" which makes them both better at handling RF Power for Transmitting then the RG6 Coax Cable. The Key Characteristic that Quad-Shield RG6 Coax Cable has over both RG8 and RG58 Coax Cable is the Four Outer Shields for better protection against extraneous RF Signal Penetration : Since RG6 is by-design a Coax Cable that is most often used in "Receiving Only" applications such as 'Free' Over-the-Air TV, Cable TV, and Satellite TV; for Weak Signals and Signal Protection. IMHO - Quad-Shield RG6 Coax Cable is a natural choice for many Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWLs) looking to Reduce and Eliminate the Ingress of RFI and EMF into and along their Shortwave Antenna's Coax Cable feed-in-line. COST - Often Quad-Shield RG6 Coax Cable has a Lower Cost per Foot then both RG8 and RG58 Coax Cables. EXAMPLE - 100 Feet of Quad-Shield RG6 Coax Cable at WalMart http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...uct_id=7811235 for $33 which is 33 Cents per Foot -vice- 69 Cents per Foot for RG8 Coax Cable at a Amateur {Ham} Radio Specialty Store. AVAILABLITY - Also Quad-Shield RG6 Coax Cable is just about Available Anywhere from : Home Depot, to WalMart, to Ace Hardware, etc. iane ~ RHF |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cablesfor Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
RHF wrote:
- http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncg...elden&MAX=250& - David, The BURY-FLEX (TM) that is offered by the Davis RF Co. is also pretty good stuff too. ~ RHF http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#buryflex -But- It Too Is Over Kill For Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) "Receive Only" Antennas. Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 CoaxCables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
On Dec 31, 10:45*am, David wrote:
RHF wrote: -http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncgi/ase?MAN=Belden&MAX=250& - David, The BURY-FLEX (TM) *that is offered by the Davis RF Co. is also pretty good stuff too. ~ RHF http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#buryflex -But- It Too Is Over Kill For Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) "Receive Only" Antennas. - - Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? * - The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. - David, If you can Talk to your Flowers and Plants to make them Grow : Imagine the potential of Broadcasting Directly to Their Roots ! sometimes i amaze myself ~ RHF |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 CoaxCables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
RHF wrote:
On Dec 31, 10:45 am, David wrote: RHF wrote: -http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncgi/ase?MAN=Belden&MAX=250& - David, The BURY-FLEX (TM) that is offered by the Davis RF Co. is also pretty good stuff too. ~ RHF http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#buryflex -But- It Too Is Over Kill For Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) "Receive Only" Antennas. - - Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? - The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. - David, If you can Talk to your Flowers and Plants to make them Grow : Imagine the potential of Broadcasting Directly to Their Roots ! sometimes i amaze myself ~ RHF . The phone and the CATV are already buried. All the plants care about is bull****. |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 CoaxCables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
On Dec 31 2007, 6:45 pm, David wrote:
RHF wrote: -http://www.hamradio.com/cgi-bin/uncgi/ase?MAN=Belden&MAX=250& - David, The BURY-FLEX (TM) that is offered by the Davis RF Co. is also pretty good stuff too. ~ RHF http://www.davisrf.com/coax.php#buryflex -But- It Too Is Over Kill For Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) "Receive Only" Antennas. Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. Planting your coax at least 12' down can dramatically reduce common mode noise originating in your home from reaching your antenna! In repeated tests in the 'real world' and my lab I was unable to detect !!ANY!! difference caused by differing coax impedance with many different receivers. R2000 DX398 R390 R392 R8B AOR 7030+ And every other receiver I could lay my hands on. Pick the cheapest cable with the best braid and that is rated for direct burial. An advantage of the quad shield is the reduction of 'transfer impedance' signal ingress of MW signals. Very few people will live close enough to a MW station to experience worry about this minor problem. Terry |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
snip
Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. Planting your coax at least 12' down Gadzooks! I hope that's a typo! snip -j |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 CoaxCables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
On Jan 3, 7:45*pm, RHF wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:15*pm, JoanD'arcRoast wrote: snip Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? *The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. Planting your coax at least 12' down - - Gadzooks! I hope that's a typo! - - snip - - -j JDaR - To Parphrase : Still 'RF' Runs Deep ~ RHF Yes - Buried and Burying your Coax Cable feed-in-line is a Very Good idea : Four to Six Inches (4"~6") is Good Eight to Ten Inches (8"~10") is Better Twelve Inches (12") or more is a whole lot of Work -if- you don't have a Machine to Dig the Trench for you. ~ RHF *. JDaR - To Parphrase : Run Deep to Still the 'RF' ~ RHF |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 CoaxCables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
RHF wrote:
Yes - Buried and Burying your Coax Cable feed-in-line is a Very Good idea : Why??? Any -technical- reason other than "So the lawn mower won't slice and dice it"? References, please... |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cablesfor Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
JoanD'arcRoast wrote:
snip Are you suggesting we bury RG-8 in our gardens? The RG-8X is plenty good below VHF. Planting your coax at least 12' down Gadzooks! I hope that's a typo! snip -j We're going to need a bigger ditchwitch... |
? WHY Use RG6 Quad-Shield Coax Cable over RG8 and RG58 Coax Cables for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna Feed-in-Lines ?
In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote: RHF wrote: Yes - Buried and Burying your Coax Cable feed-in-line is a Very Good idea : Why??? Any -technical- reason other than "So the lawn mower won't slice and dice it"? References, please... This only works if you plant the coax next to the rutabagas. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's Coax CableFeed-in-Line ?
On Jan 4, 4:11 am, Billy Burpelson wrote:
- - RHF wrote: - - Yes - Buried and Burying your Coax Cable - - feed-in-line is a Very Good idea : - - Why??? - Any -technical- reason other than - "So the lawn mower won't slice and dice it"? - - References, please... - WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's Coax Cable Feed-in-Line ? BP - Humm, Let's See Making-a-List : # 1 - Keeps the Lawn Mower from Slicing and Dicing my SWL Antenna's Coax Cable feed-in-line every other Month. # 2 - Dang - See # 1 + Safety - It's a Tripping Hazard. # 3 - Double Dang - See # 1 + The Better-Half Does Not Want To See "IT" In Her Garden-Yard. 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 * SWL Longwire * Low Noise Antenna Connection * Grounding Is Key To Good Reception iane ~ RHF |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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. :-) |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
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. :-) Or, you might believe the 1990's rather than the 1930's :-) |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
On Jan 5, 9:20*am, dxAce 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. * :-) Or, you might believe the 1990's rather than the 1930's :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah DX Ace - Sort-of : That Was Then . . . This Is Now ! ~ RHF WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ? Amplified Audio Frequency Signal Distribution -circa- 1930s and the 1930s RFI-EMF Environment - = Versus = - Passive RF High Frequency Signal Distribution -circu- 1990s and the 1990s RFI-EMF Environment |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
On Jan 5, 9:42*am, RHF wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:20*am, dxAce 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. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
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. But the ability to diagnose the debutantes, the malcontents and the faux's of SWBC certainly have! |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
On Jan 5, 9:56*am, 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. John Doty wrote his 'stuff' in the 1990s. - 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. BP -wrt- The Applicable Law of Physics:- No They Have Not. 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. super-ficial-ly yours ~ RHF |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
RHF wrote: On Jan 5, 9:56 am, 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. John Doty wrote his 'stuff' in the 1990s. Exactly... therefore my comment about the debutantes, the malcontents and the faux's of SWBC. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's Coax Cable Feed-in-Line ?
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. :-) 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? Why should we read you posts when we can just go read the person you reference? You think you somehow improve the information? I think reading your posts are a waste of time. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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 |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
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. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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. ;-) |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
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? |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
"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. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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 |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's Coax Cable Feed-in-Line ?
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 |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
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... |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
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 |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
dxAcehole, Supreme Commander Urinal Malingering Misfits (S.C.U.M.M.)
wrote: Generally, the decision to pose as a faux Hispanic is one of idiocy, not of sanity. Pretending to be a Native American is the ultimate in idiocy, as you've been told countless times while getting your Federal Government Assistance payments, Bozo. Kill any more Mexicans last night? Any blood on the axe handle you keep by the back door? It isn't there? Better phone the janitor at the Greyhound Station washroom. mike |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
dxAcehole, Sickly Cretinous Underachieving Male Member Masticator
(S.C.U.M.M.M.) wrote: My question: Why do you talk just like David Rickets? The same reason you try to talk like a human. mike |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCableFeed-in-Line ?
m II wrote: dxAcehole, Supreme Commander Urinal Malingering Misfits (S.C.U.M.M.) wrote: Generally, the decision to pose as a faux Hispanic is one of idiocy, not of sanity. Pretending to be a Native American is the ultimate in idiocy, as you've been told countless times while getting your Federal Government Assistance payments, Bozo. Assistance? I merely collect my Social Security. |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
On Jan 6, 6:33*pm, m II wrote:
dxAcehole, Supreme Commander Urinal Malingering Misfits (S.C.U.M.M.) wrote: Generally, the decision to pose as a faux Hispanic is one of idiocy, not of sanity. - Pretending to be a Native American is the ultimate in idiocy, - as you've been told countless times while getting your Mike - You Are What You Are -and- Sadly You Are Not ! - Federal Government Assistance payments, Mike - A Canadian criticizing Grovernment Assistance ? - Bozo. Mike - Clearly You Know BOZO ! - Kill any more Mexicans last night? Mike - The USA is Not Canada : In the USA Illegal Alien Mexican Invaders can be Deported; without being Killed as Sport like Baby Seals in Canada. - Any blood on the axe handle you keep by the back door? - It isn't there? Mike - The Axe Handle is made of All American Solid Hickory not some week Canadian Maple pecker-wood. Mike - The Back Door Faces North toward Canada and it is Locked. - Better phone the janitor at the Greyhound Station washroom. Mike - Why . . . Are You MIA ? - mike ~ RHF |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna'sCoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
On Jan 6, 9:17*am, RHF wrote:
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...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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 Buried 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. http://www.hamuniverse.com/grounding.html http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters....y&letterID=134 http://mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/...2~20041005.php # 2 - Functions as a Ground Radial for the Wire Antenna Element to 'unify' the "Ground Effect" {Ground Conductivity Efficiency} between the two Ground Rods. http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html # 3 -IF- The Wire Antenna Element is hung in the Air 'over' this Buried Coax Cable it is in-effect a Counterpoise to the Wire Antenna Element. http://www.cebik.com/gp/cps.html READ - WHY - The Far-End-Fed Shortwave Listener's (SWLs) Inverted "L" Antenna http://www.google.com/group/rec.radi...cfc6b9cb2447c0 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortw.../message/11698 4- 5- etc... |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
In article 57ggj.55729$5l3.15797@edtnps82, m II wrote:
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. You come to this news group with your trash talk everyday and you have a problem when I poke sticks at the latest troll to visit the news group. Well thats just to bad. I don't care what you think. You never contribute information here. You are a member in very poor standing. As long as I'm not as obnoxious and strange as you I'll be OK. When is the last time you made an on topic post? A few months ago last year? Maybe one or two at most. Do everyone that reads the news group a big favor and go someplace else or grow up. Take your pick. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
WHY - Bury Your Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna's CoaxCable Feed-in-Line ?
On Jan 7, 11:35*am, RHF wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:17*am, RHF wrote: 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...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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 Buried 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.http://www.hamuniverse.com/grounding...ing-Part-1-of-... # 2 - Functions as a Ground Radial for the Wire Antenna Element to 'unify' the "Ground Effect" {Ground Conductivity Efficiency} between the two Ground Rods.http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html # 3 -IF- The Wire Antenna Element is hung in the Air 'over' this Buried Coax Cable it is in-effect a Counterpoise to the Wire Antenna Element.http://www.cebik.com/gp/cps.html READ - WHY - The Far-End-Fed Shortwave Listener's (SWLs) Inverted "L" Antennahttp://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/22cfc6b9cb2447c0http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortwave-SWL-Antenna/message/11698 4- 5- etc...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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 Buried 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. http://www.hamuniverse.com/grounding.html http://www.mikeholt.com/newsletters....y&letterID=134 http://mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/...2~20041005.php # 2 - Functions as a Ground Radial for the Wire Antenna Element to 'unify' the "Ground Effect" {Ground Conductivity Efficiency} between the two Ground Rods. http://www.sgcworld.com/radialstechnote.html # 3 -IF- The Wire Antenna Element is hung in the Air 'over' this Buried Coax Cable it is in-effect a Counterpoise to the Wire Antenna Element. http://www.cebik.com/gp/cps.html READ - WHY - The Far-End-Fed Shortwave Listener's (SWLs) Inverted "L" Antenna http://www.google.com/group/rec.radi...cfc6b9cb2447c0 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortw.../message/11698 # 4 - Digging the Trench to Bury the Coax Cable feed-in-line Opens-Up-the-Ground ! -meaning- You now have a Trench in the Ground to place 'things' in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_conductivity * While the Braided Outer Shield of the Coax Cable can 'connect' the two Ground Rods at each end of the feed-in-line : It is not a Solid Copper Wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_%28electricity%29 * While the Braided Outer Shield of the Coax Cable can 'be' a Ground Radial between the two Ground Rods at each end of the feed-in-line : It is not a Solid Copper Wire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_%28radio%29 TIP - While the Trench is Open : Place a Solid Copper Wire in it to : http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/radials.html * Better Connect {Bond} the two Ground Rods at each end of the feed-in-line. * Be a Better Ground Radial in the Ground then the Coax Cable can be by itself. ABOUT - Ground Radial Wire Buried Radials: A Small Compendium -by- L. B. Cebik [W4RNL] http://www.cebik.com/gp/gr.html * Solid Bare Copper Wire to 'connect' along it's full lenght with the Earthen-Soil {Ground} that it is laying in. http://www.bencher.com/pdfs/00361ZZV.pdf * # 16 AWG or Larger - In the trench running parallel with the Coax Shield # 16 AWG Solid Bare Copper Wire will do OK. http://www.radiobooks.com/products/grw1k.htm -but-if- you happen to have a coupl of hundred feet of # 12 or #14 Insulated Solid Copper Wire laying around; and want to Strip the Insulation off-of-it to use as for Ground Radials - Go For It ! http://www.signalengineering.com/ult...th_ground.html The Radial "Rule-of-Thumb" for Receive Only Shortwave Antennas : The More Radials the smaller the Radial Wire that can be use; with # 16 AWG being about the smallest. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/grndwire.htm 16~18 or more Radials : # 16 AWG Solid Bare Copper Wire 8~9 Radials : # 14 AWG Solid Bare Copper Wire 3~4 Radials : # 12 AWG Solid Bare Copper Wire Single Wire Counterpoise : # 10 AWG Solid Bare Copper Wire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge The Guiding Principle of Radials : The More Radials The Better. http://www.ncjweb.com/k3lcmaxgainradials.pdf 5- etc... iane ~ RHF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com