On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...

To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
going to attenuate anyway.

Best regards and happy holidays,
Joe

The larger antenna will simply pick up signals which the smaller antenna
cannot ... difficult concept, for some, it seems ...

Regards,
JS

On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
IS about too poor of a receiver front end.

Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.

On 12/19/2010 8:15 PM, John Smith wrote:

All I get is that you missed the importance of attenuators (heck, a
couple of variable resistors will do.)

Again, you miss the point. Why should the OP build a longer antenna for
his receiver and then attenuate the signal before it gets to the receiver?

Indeed, most decent radios already have an RF Gain control on them ...
this will be quite helpful.

The OP wasn't asking about *most* receivers. The answer given by me and
others for HIS receiver and HIS specific question is correct.

Why you are making a non-problem into a problem and arguing for small
antennas is simply perplexing! To say the least!

Please don't be too perplexed. I am not arguing in general for small
antennas. I AM saying a large antenna is not the correct antenna for the
OP's specific receiver in question. Period. What don't *you* understand
about that?

And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...

Again you are addressing the -general- case. For the -specific- receiver
the OP actually asked about, a 300 foot antenna would be a disaster.

On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...

To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
going to attenuate anyway.

Best regards and happy holidays,
Joe

On 12/19/2010 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote:

The larger antenna will simply pick up signals which the smaller antenna
cannot ... difficult concept, for some, it seems ...

Regards,
JS

Yes, you are right, it will pick up signals a smaller antenna will not.
On this we agree.

The "difficult concept" that *you* keep overlooking is that FOR THE
RECEIVER THE OP ASKED ABOUT, the front end of said receiver, is *not*
designed for a very long antenna.

If you have a communications receiver with good front end selectivity,
the longer antenna will indeed be better. However, that was *not* the
type of receiver the OP was asking about.

To summarize, in the *general* case, you are correct that a longer
antenna is better; in the *specific* case that the OP actually asked
about, longer is NOT better. You seem to keep addressing the general
case while I and others are actually addressing the OP's specific case.

On 12/19/2010 5:48 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Yes, you are right, it will pick up signals a smaller antenna will not.
On this we agree.

The "difficult concept" that *you* keep overlooking is that FOR THE
RECEIVER THE OP ASKED ABOUT, the front end of said receiver, is *not*
designed for a very long antenna.

If you have a communications receiver with good front end selectivity,
the longer antenna will indeed be better. However, that was *not* the
type of receiver the OP was asking about.

To summarize, in the *general* case, you are correct that a longer
antenna is better; in the *specific* case that the OP actually asked
about, longer is NOT better. You seem to keep addressing the general
case while I and others are actually addressing the OP's specific case.

No. You don't know how to use a long antenna with such a receiver, that
is the only problem. And, it sounds like you believe no one else is
capable and has knowledge of how to make it work just fine. And, this
all appears to place you in a position where you are either unwilling or
unable to get the skills and knowledge.

Regards,
JS

On 12/19/2010 5:47 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
Again, you miss the point. Why should the OP build a longer antenna for
his receiver and then attenuate the signal before it gets to the receiver?


Again ... to receive signals he cannot with a shorter antenna.

...
The OP wasn't asking about *most* receivers. The answer given by me and
others for HIS receiver and HIS specific question is correct.


Again, if you have an inferior radio, without RF Gain control and/or
attenuator ... YOU NEED TO BUILD/BUY ONE! ... if you want to get the DX
signals ...


...
Please don't be too perplexed. I am not arguing in general for small
antennas. I AM saying a large antenna is not the correct antenna for the
OP's specific receiver in question. Period. What don't *you* understand
about that?

A long antenna is not ONLY for some receivers, it is for all receivers
.... indeed, a 1/4 wave MW antenna is over 300 FT. That is simply
balderdash you would expect from someone who has never used a decent
receiver and antenna combination!


And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...

Again you are addressing the -general- case. For the -specific- receiver
the OP actually asked about, a 300 foot antenna would be a disaster.


I have ran some of the most sensitive receivers in the world. Your
arguments simply are false and anyone with enough experience will
immediately know it ... it is beginning to seem as if you just wish to
spin the heads of newbies ...

Now, after you have so eloquently demonstrated the need, you are
killfiled ... bye!

Regards,
JS

On 12/19/2010 9:07 PM, RHF wrote:

...
- You would expect most to be aware of such things.
- A balun/unun is actually a very necessary part
- of any antenna system ...

JS - The Original Poster "Garrett1415" -wrote-
Hey Folks,
I'm Garrett.
I'm new here,
so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
I'm relatively new to the hobby,
I recently bought my first shortwave receiver,
a Sony ICF-SW7600GR.
I'm living in Michigan currently,
and I'm a Junior in High School.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...116aff7d48bd64
...

Yeah, he was the only guy NOT stating that a decent antenna would not be
suitable ... he, probably, is right around the age I got my first ham
license ... should catch on rather quickly.

Regards,
JS

On Dec 19, 5:18*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...

To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
going to attenuate anyway.

Best regards and happy holidays,
Joe

- The larger antenna will simply pick up signals
- which the smaller antenna cannot ...
- difficult concept, for some, it seems ...
-
- Regards,
- JS

JS - Actually That Is Not True :

The Signals in the Aether Exist [.]
{In Their Own Relative Strength 'Potential'}

The smaller antenna will pick-up all the signals
that the Larger Antenna -but- at a smaller signal
level {potential} due to it's smaller physical size
and properties.
{Smaller Capture Area = Less Signal 'Potential' Gathering}

The Larger Antenna will also pick-up all the Signals
of the smaller antenna -but- at a Greater Signal
Level {Potential} due to it's Larger Physical Size
and Properties.
{Larger Capture Area = More Signal 'Potential' Gathering}

The Relative 'Local' Noise Level may prevent small
{weak} signals from being heard.

The Receiver's Noise Floor and Amplification Factor
may prevent small {weak} signals from being heard.

never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
most often other factors prevent you
from hearing them - iane ~ RHF

On Dec 19, 5:08*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 12/19/2010 3:52 PM, John Smith wrote:

All but the most blatant newbies should be able to deal with a "too good
an antenna."

Because of disinformation and "wives tales", I suspect there are many
with a tiny 30 ft. antenna who think they are realized "good reception"
and feeling quite capable of advising others.

It is simply time to fix this ...

Regards,
JS

You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
IS about too poor of a receiver front end.

Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.

JfK,

Actually the Sony ICF-SW7600GR 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radio is just fine as is.

It is simply 'optimized' to use the Whip Antenna
or a small 23 Foot Reel-Up Antenna that 90+%
of the 'portable AM/FM Shortwave Radio 'users'
will be using to listen to their radios.

Simply giving the Customer the best Product
for their normal intended use.
-sort-of-like-
* Not selling a Ferrari Racer to someone who
is looking for a 4WD Off-Road Pick-Up Truck.
* Not selling a Bentley to someone who is
looking for an Open Golf-Cart.

~ RHF

On 12/19/2010 9:25 PM, RHF wrote:

...
never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
most often other factors prevent you
from hearing them - iane ~ RHF
.
.

Absolutely. Indeed, I'd even speculate that if a mosquito farts in
Australia, it causes a "disturbance" in America! And, could be
detected--with a sufficiently sensitive detector ...

However, as stated, a longer and/or higher antenna will provide stronger
and more signals.

Point being, a small antenna can never be made to function as well as a
larger antenna. And that simply translates into the longer and higher
the better ... up to a point. Very long antennas (in relation to
wavelength become directional in the direction the wire travels.)

A complete SW setup (or even a good MW DX station) with have a decent
antenna, a balun/unun and matchbox/tuner and fed with a suitable feeder
(coax is best when the feeder goes though areas susceptible to noise,) a
filter(s) able to provide rejection of unwanted signals, an attenuator, etc.

A good antenna with a mediocre receiver will beat a better receiver with
a poor antenna every time ... And, of course, you must provide the
receiver with a usable signal before you get anywhere at all ... so much
for "Radio 101."

Regards,
JS

On Dec 19, 7:54*pm, wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:06*pm, RHF wrote:



On Dec 19, 5:15*pm, John Smith wrote: On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

...
You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
IS about too poor of a receiver front end.

Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.

All I get is that you missed the importance of attenuators (heck, a
couple of variable resistors will do.)

- Indeed, most decent radios already have
-an RF Gain control on them ...
- this will be quite helpful.

Looking for the RF Gain Control on the Sony
ICF-7600GR 'portable AM/FM Shortwave Radio :
oops,,, Opps... OOPS ! ! !
THERE AIN'T ONE - oops ~ RHF
*.

Why you are making a non-problem into a problem and arguing for small
antennas is simply perplexing! *To say the least!

And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- Should have a Local/Dx attenuator switch.

Actually it does : some do & some don't
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...ble/0360sv.jpg
-wrt- 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radios ~ RHF