JIMMIE wrote:

...
When I was in my teensI had access to a 5 mile beverage antenna in the
form of abandoned telegraph lines. I used to plug in the AM radio in
my car to it and listen for AM BCB dx. I could terminate either end
and hook up to the opposite end. In the day it was also a great way to
park with my date. Yes those were great times.

Jimmie

Amen brother, I pity those who have never felt the thrill, the mystery,
the wonder, the indescribable feeling--while very slowly turning that
dial ... and finding "that" signal!

Warmest regards,
JS

PJ wrote:

Folks,

This is the OP speaking. Thanks for all the various tips and tricks! I
don't care much for the unpleasant tone between some posters in the
rec.radio.shortwave group, but there are still a few glimpses of good
information that I can use.

I was a very keen DX:er in the seventies, and I used a Swedish vacuum
tube radio from 1952, named Nornan LV 1220, with a continous SW band
from 15 meters to 120 meters. I still have it, and it still works, but
I thought that I'd go a little more modern with the ATS-909... :-)
Although I think that the LV 1220 is just as good when it comes to SW
reception.

I remember that my dream, in the seventies, was to hear the AFAN
(American Forces Antarctic Network) SW transmissions here in Sweden.
They then used a 1 kW transmitter, and I had heard that someone in the
south of Sweden had been able to hear them at some point. Alas, I
never did. I am pretty sure that I picked up the carrier wave, but I
couldn't hear anything... Bummer... In the 2009 WRTH the AFAN are only
listed as an FM station, so I guess that those days are over...

Yes, the only way now to hear SWBC from Antarctica is via the Argentinian
station, LRA36, on 15476 which normally operates Monday to Friday 1800-2100 in
Spanish.

Has certainly been heard in Europe and Scandinavia.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Dec 25, 2:02*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:25*pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article ,
*John Smith wrote:

Don't bring the amateur antenna group into these discussions. That group
has a bunch of key clowns in it.

Yeah, they actually build antennas for all frequencies, something you
obviously do not ... ROFLOL

Most amateurs do not.
Most amateurs buy them.
Most amateurs would not know how to build them.

No amateurs operate on all frequencies idiot.

Idiot, he said connect an antenna to the whip.

No he didn't idiot. He even mentioned that the radio comes with the
ANT-60 antenna, which plugs into the antenna jack not clip onto the whip
antenna. The clip is for holding the far end of the windup part of the
antenna to something so the antenna can be held off the ground, idiot.

Ummm - to try to remain on-topic, yes the 909 has an external antenna
jack, although in my recollection it does not come with a suitable
antenna, nor does that jack connect you in a meaningful way to the MW
band if you connect it according to the instructions. *It must be done
using a 3-conductor phono plug with one pair of conductors shorted
(IIRC). *I do not have my reference for this handy, but the schematic
is available last time I knew on various web sites.

For that matter, I don't think the "clip to the whip" gives a
meaningful MW boost either - just SW/HF.

Bruce Jensen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I really need to break out my DX398/909
I was reading your post Bruce and I do seem to remember what you are
saying. All I know is that I didn't get/didn't like what I was
receiving using the internal antenna jack. Actually I was somewhat
dissapointed when I got the radio. But there are many things one can
do for that piece to make it a real dynamo on SW/BCB/FM. I sent mine
to Chris Justice at RadioLabs and the mods he did really really
changed my opinion of the receiver itself and I kept it. He installed
another type of antenna connection to the back of the radio. I never
really put up anything antenna wise to truly check that specific mod.

On Dec 25, 11:02*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:25*pm, Telamon



wrote:
In article ,
*John Smith wrote:

Don't bring the amateur antenna group into these discussions. That group
has a bunch of key clowns in it.

Yeah, they actually build antennas for all frequencies, something you
obviously do not ... ROFLOL

Most amateurs do not.
Most amateurs buy them.
Most amateurs would not know how to build them.

No amateurs operate on all frequencies idiot.

Idiot, he said connect an antenna to the whip.

No he didn't idiot. He even mentioned that the radio comes with the
ANT-60 antenna, which plugs into the antenna jack not clip onto the whip
antenna. The clip is for holding the far end of the windup part of the
antenna to something so the antenna can be held off the ground, idiot.

Ummm - to try to remain on-topic, yes the 909 has an external antenna
jack, although in my recollection it does not come with a suitable
antenna, nor does that jack connect you in a meaningful way to the MW
band if you connect it according to the instructions. *It must be done
using a 3-conductor phono plug with one pair of conductors shorted
(IIRC). *I do not have my reference for this handy, but the schematic
is available last time I knew on various web sites.

For that matter, I don't think the "clip to the whip" gives a
meaningful MW boost either - just SW/HF.

Bruce Jensen

For One and All,

Sangean ATS-909 Radio : One Radio : Two Antennas :
AM/MW Loop Antenna & Shortwave Wire Antenna

The simplest thing for most Radio Listeners that are
using the Sangean ATS-909 Radio is to use two
Antenna Set-Ups :

For Shortwave Radio Listening use an external
{Outside} Improved Random Wire Antenna that
http://www.kc7nod.20m.com/improved_rw.htm
is 'connected' via the Radio's 1/8" Stereo External
Antenna Input wired so that the :
1 - TIP is for the Shortwave {RF} Antenna Signal
2 - REAR BARREL is for the Ground Wire
* Leaving the Center-Ring un-used.
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/images/antright.gif
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/longwire.html

For AM/MW/BCB Radio Listening place the Radio
on a Lazy Susan along with an AM/MW Loop Antenna
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/mwant/4316.html
1 - TUNE Both for the best AM/MW Reception.
2 - ROTATE Both as a single unit for the best AM/MW Reception
* UNPLUG the 1/8" Stereo External Shortwave
Antenna Input when Listing to AM/MW Radio.
http://www.radiointel.com/review-2loop.htm
http://www.radiointel.com/review-degentg39.htm
http://www.kaitousa.com/AN200.htm

hope this helps - iane ~ RHF

On Dec 26, 12:56*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*PJ wrote:
Folks,

This is the OP speaking. Thanks for all the various tips and tricks! I
don't care much for the unpleasant tone between some posters in the
rec.radio.shortwave group, but there are still a few glimpses of good
information that I can use.

SNIP

edit news group header

There are many good people interested in the hobby that post here with
information. Sometimes you just have to knock the Trolling idiots over
the head with a clue stick.

Please don't cross post to rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Normally it would
be the right thing to do but that amateur group has a real collection of
idiots in it and this news group already has its share of that type.

But if you insist on cross posting there I can guarantee you there will
be more of what you don't like to see here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

PJ - Telamon Is Right )

i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
{sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}

On Dec 26, 6:56*pm, John Smith wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I can add a little information that might be helpful.

When considering a receiving antenna, the single thing you need to be
concerned about is signal to noise ratio. Unless your antenna is
exceptionally poor and/or your receiver exceptionally noisy, making what
you receive louder is just a matter of turning up the volume, or adding
an audio amplifier if it's not loud enough. But it won't help you hear a
station, because it and the noise will get louder in the same proportion.

RHF wrote:

...
JS - You are replying like and Amateur Radio Operator
[HAM] and are most likely You Are Technically Correct
-wrt- Every item that you have pointed out is very valid
for Amateur Radio [HAM] Operators.

RL - In this instance Knows His Reader and is replying
as a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) to the Original
Question : Which was posted by a SWL for Tips on
what would be {how to make} a better SWL 'type' of
Antenna.
-wrt- The SWLer "RL" is Practically Correct.

JS - You speak of Antenna 'resonance' while the SWL
Antenna is by-design a board-banded "Random" Wire
Antenna : Which is often used un-tuned across the
Shortwave Radio Bands from 3~30 Mhz.
Result : On-average-better-Signal-Levels
-and- On-average-lower-Noise-Levels

RL - Is very correct that for the Shortwave Radio Listener
(SWL) : Their Antenna's should give them improved 'better'
Signal-to-Noise : So That They Can Hear More [.]

two similar hobbies and two different objectives - iane ~ RHF
.
.

Again, in the narrow context which you describe this, you are correct.
But, there is no reason to NOT have an antenna of resonate length. A
simple motor and a spring loaded real to take up slack will allow you to
construct an antenna of variable length and multi-band capability.
Indeed, only ones knowledge, "macguiverisms", and patience limits one
.... as opposed to purchasing a product which is solely, usually, based
on construction costs alone.

I think the post, of mine, which you are responding to, with your above
response, implied all this--I honestly meant to imply such ... or, in
other words, you can only get out what you put in with your efforts,
time, materials, knowledge, techniques, etc.; Or, i.e., the more
thought, design and good construction practices used, the better the
results.

While some of us may search for the most simple constructions, others
will go towards the most elaborate constructions--if anyone is like
myself, complexity grew with understanding, knowledge, patience, etc.

And, as I implied, Roy gave an answer which would have sufficed for,
perhaps, the majority of SWL-ers... I did not fault it (his response),
rather I expanded upon it ... no harm meant here, nor did I intend to
"slight" anyone! HONEST!

Regards,
JS

On Dec 26, 8:30*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:
...
JS - You are replying like and Amateur Radio Operator
[HAM] and are most likely You Are Technically Correct
-wrt- Every item that you have pointed out is very valid
for Amateur Radio [HAM] Operators.

RL - In this instance Knows His Reader and is replying
as a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) to the Original
Question : Which was posted by a SWL for Tips on
what would be {how to make} a better SWL 'type' of
Antenna.
-wrt- The SWLer "RL" is Practically Correct.

JS - You speak of Antenna 'resonance' while the SWL
Antenna is by-design a board-banded "Random" Wire
Antenna : Which is often used un-tuned across the
Shortwave Radio Bands from 3~30 Mhz.
Result : On-average-better-Signal-Levels
-and- On-average-lower-Noise-Levels

RL - Is very correct that for the Shortwave Radio Listener
(SWL) : Their Antenna's should give them improved 'better'
Signal-to-Noise : So That They Can Hear More [.]

two similar hobbies and two different objectives - iane ~ RHF
*.
*.

Again, in the narrow context which you describe this, you are correct.
But, there is no reason to NOT have an antenna of resonate length. *A
simple motor and a spring loaded real to take up slack will allow you to
construct an antenna of variable length and multi-band capability.
Indeed, only ones knowledge, "macguiverisms", and patience limits one
... as opposed to purchasing a product which is solely, usually, based
on construction costs alone.

I think the post, of mine, which you are responding to, with your above
response, implied all this--I honestly meant to imply such ... or, in
other words, you can only get out what you put in with your efforts,
time, materials, knowledge, techniques, etc.; Or, i.e., the more
thought, design and good construction practices used, the better the
results.

While some of us may search for the most simple constructions, others
will go towards the most elaborate constructions--if anyone is like
myself, complexity grew with understanding, knowledge, patience, etc.

And, as I implied, Roy gave an answer which would have sufficed for,
perhaps, the majority of SWL-ers... I did not fault it (his response),
rather I expanded upon it ... no harm meant here, nor did I intend to
"slight" anyone! *HONEST!

Regards,
JS

JS,

Alas i am but a simple shortwave LISTENER

I simply LISTEN and 'enjoy' what I LISTEN too

Beyond that; when i LISTEN everything else
is so much technical 'noise'

JS - Enjoy "The Craft" of BEING an Amateur "Ham"
Radio Operator -and- I am sure that you are a lot
more . . . and rightly well deserved too.

js - but alas i remain a simple shortwave listener
who simply enjoys listening to the radio; cause
practically speaking; that is what i do
- - - respectfully ~ RHF

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I can add a little information that might be helpful.

When considering a receiving antenna, the single thing you need to be
concerned about is signal to noise ratio. Unless your antenna is
exceptionally poor and/or your receiver exceptionally noisy, making what
you receive louder is just a matter of turning up the volume, or adding
an audio amplifier if it's not loud enough. But it won't help you hear a
station, because it and the noise will get louder in the same proportion.


I differ; although, I can understand why Roy would reply in such a
simplistic manner ...

I agree with with Roy Lewallen. This is the only guy worth reading on
that amateur antenna news group.

If the antenna is resonate, matched to its' load, and is not using lossy
construction practices--a very magical thing occurs. And, in such a
situation, it appears as if a wire runs directly from the transmitter to
your antenna. Nicola Tesla first documents this, then others ...

However, most give up before they obtain the knowledge and construction
practices which produce such antennas--and, indeed, if you wish
broadband antennas, no matter how you construct them, they will only
produce this performance on a narrow band of frequencies, or perhaps,
just a single one ... but, they can be constructed to preform,
reasonably well, over a broadband of frequencies or even bands.

If you have immense focus, devotion to the construction of antennas, a
reasonably astute mind, and the necessary skills, a willingness to
construct until you have that "revelation"--the realization of all this
awaits you. :-)

Resonance is a wonderful thing but we talking about broadband antennas
so the only way to mitigate this is to have to tune the antenna as you
tune the radio. This can be done manually and remotely but is more work
than most people would want to do tuning up and down the band.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you bring up another parameter
of antennas or circuits in general that offer an improvement to signal
to noise.

There are two main ways to improve signal to noise. Solution one is
Roy's using antenna directional gain and nulls. This works because noise
that comes from every direction is limited. The signal is also increased
when it is in the part of the antenna pattern that has gain.

The Mr. Smith solution limits bandwidth. This works because noise is
broadband and so decreasing the bandwidth limits the noise. The signal
is also increased when the tuned antenna resonates at that frequency.

Two different parameters that in different ways improve signal to noise.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Dec 23, 8:06*pm, SC Dxing wrote:
PJ,

I've discovered there is no best antenna for everyone for shortwave
listening. Ignore the trolls here, start off with your wire antenna,
then experiment if you wish. I've tried a few things over the past few
weeks and for me, just running a wire along the ground about 60 feet
works best for me. I guess the only certain thing is that an antenna
that runs outside will work better than an inside antenna. If you
can't run one outside, try to put it by a window or up high in your
house/apartment. Experimenting is part of the fun, just google around,
play around, and have hours of fun on your new radio. I only in the
last few weeks have rediscovered listening to SW radio.

Happy listening.

SC,
Did you inductively couple the antenna to your whip? If you didn't you
will notice a marked improvement if you do it that way. Just in case
you don't know (I think I posted this already) grab you some wire (I
use 11 or 12 gauge) and tightly wrap five-seven turns around your whip
and cut the rest off. Pull about an inch of the plastic off and clip
onto that. At one time I was doing the "exact" thing you are except I
think my stretch of wire was 70ft. But I picking up a lot rf here and
there, pretty high noise floor on some bands. When I coupled it that
way the noise floor dropped to nothing.