RHF wrote:

...
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
.

Quit peeing on my leg ...

Brother, I enjoy having a good time, a good drink and the company of a
good woman as well as anyone; And, furthermore, I am here because I
enjoy a good antenna as well as anyone else.

I am here because some know much more than me, can explain it in a
manner which I can absorb (Cecil is but one example), and I expect there
is much more for us ALL to learn, indeed ...

I ain't here to lecture you ... I ain't here to be a ham ... I ain't
here to play the game of "one-up-man-ship"; I am here to catch what I
missed "the-first-time-around"--end-of-story.

But now, a good argument, a good debate, a good "theory-session" ...
count me in!

Sit back, and pick on the next guy in line ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

RHF wrote:

...
- - - respectfully ~ RHF
.

But, can I ask you one question?; You do pull on your pants one leg at
a time, right? wink

I mean, only politicians, as far as I know, claim different! LOL

Regards,
JS

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.

Quite a bit of what you'll read about antennas deals with improving
antenna efficiency. That's because it's important when the antenna is
used for transmitting. But when you use it for HF receiving, efficiency
doesn't matter unless it gets to be bad enough that your receiver's
noise becomes greater than the atmospheric noise it's receiving.

Efficiency matters just as much on receive as it does on transmit.

dxAce wrote:

...
Efficiency matters just as much on receive as it does on transmit.



Actually, even more!

In fact, any antenna I have ever had, which receives well, transmits
equally well ... the reverse is not always so; As, it is easy to pump
more power into a bad antenna to make up for poor performance on xmit.

Regards,
JS

On Dec 23, 9:46*am, PJ wrote:
Folks,

I have purchased a Sangean ATS-909 World Receiver. It is equipped with
an internal ferrite antenna för MW and LW, and a telescope antenna for
SW and FM. It also comes with a portable SW antenna (ANT-60), seven
meters long. Is this external antenna generally sufficient for SW
reception, or should I get a different antenna? If yes, is there a
solution that doesn't cost all that much money? I have a copy of the
2009 World Radio TV Handbook, and they are talking about a Wellbrook
ALA-1530+ loop antenna, and let me tell you, that one is well past my
budget, because it costs $466... I am looking for something a lot
cheaper... :-) If it is recommended to replace the ANT-60, that is.

PJ

http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html
With a bit of hacking, the Wellbrook ALA 100 is as good as any of the
shortwave antennas they sell. It is just the amplifier. You have to
roll your own loop. The ALA100 is the lowest cost welbrook. At the
current exchange rate, the ala100 is a over $200.

I have made a few loops with this amp. I have a 2ftx2ft out of copper
pipe for direction finding. I have 4ft x 6ft copper pipe for regular
use. It's really stupid big and will eventually be reduced to the
original 4ftx4ft. I have a few portable designs that are around 40ft
worth of wire.

The wellbrook loops are just amazing. All that said, the ATS909
probably can't handle that much signal. It would make sense to use
one with a portable shortwave radio.

RHF wrote:


Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.



"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:

...
A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
the feed point.

Nicely is rather a broad term ...

And, if I am running 1KW+, or even multi-kilowatts, and the guy on the
other end is doing the same--we can communicate "nicely" on very poor
antennas ...

However, if I am running 5 watts, and the other guy is also, a properly
constructed antenna which has been designed around efficiency and most
desirable radiation pattern, along with having a correct impedance and
is matched EXACTLY to the equipment, and such is done without a lossy
"matchbox" or inefficient matching method--these would be of paramount
importance.

Physics, as much as math, is an EXACT science ... antennas are NOT in
realm of "art" (gray areas, open to interpretation, is a matter of
personal opinion, etc.), there is but one "best" antenna for any given
distance, terrain, pattern, etc.

Regards,
JS

Dave wrote:

...
You are not "pumping" any more "power" into a non-resonant antenna.
Unless you are using a tuner you are heating up your finals.

First, your use of "resonant" is just plain confusing ...

All my multiband antennas, which I have ever use in life, are physically
resonate on but one freq (or band.) On the others, they are only
electrically resonate (and, lossy loading components are used to effect
this.)

A matchbox can always improve the reception on a poorly designed
antenna, a mismatched antenna, a non-physically resonate antenna, etc.

My 2m, 10m, 20m antennas are separate units. My 40m-80m-160 is a
multiband, my neighbors and property limitations demand this ... and of
course, a separate antenna, designed for a fairly narrow chunk of band
would always be the most logical choice ... if possible.

If I lived in an apartment and was forced to use one antenna for all
bands, it could be done ... and would be better than nothing!

Regards,
JS

Dave wrote:

...
Not when you're talking about VSWR.


Really? First time I have ever heard someone state that!

Pray tell, what laws of physics come into play, which disrupts reality,
when the antenna is fed from the ether (receiving), rather than
developing its' load into the ether? (transmitting)

Regards,
JS

Dave wrote:

...
I don't recognize "politician" as being a monolithic culture. There are
decent ones and there are many more ****-heads, but that holds true for
society in general.

I don't believe that.

Simply because, in the last 30+ years, I have NEVER seen ANYTHING get
any better--or, at least those things which are in the realm of things
influenced by politics, legislation produced by politicians, or for that
matter, ANYTHING done by politicians!

They are there because of their desire for either money, power, or both.
They support a shadow government solely for what benefits they, their
family and friends get from the individuals in this elite group.
Although, the above would be impossible to prove at this date; I
believe a through awareness and study of the direction "things"
constantly seem to be going in leaves one with no other possible
conclusion(s) ...

Regards,
JS