| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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. So here's my questions: I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind? Second, Has anyone been able to pick up Voice of Korea in the midwest? Where could I find a current schedule online? Thanks! -Garrett |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On Dec 18, 11:51*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/18/2010 11:47 PM, RHF wrote: ... I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya' think? *ROFLOL Regards, JS JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and most of them are prone to overload from very long wire antennas. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...8e19152cc1946c Hence these recommendations. ~ RHF |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On Dec 19, 1:46*am, user wrote:
garrett1415 wrote: *Where could I find a current schedule online? Thanks! -Garrett He -- -- What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go!http://shortwave.tk 700+ Radio Stations on SWhttp://swstations.tk 300+ languages on SWhttp://radiolanguages.tk Voice of Korea [DPRK] English "B10" Fall/Winter 2010/11 Shortwave Radio Broadcast Schedule http://www.northkoreatech.org/2010/1...-b10-schedule/ |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 12/19/2010 2:51 AM, John Smith wrote: I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya' think? ROFLOL Regards, JS ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better. The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4 wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum. The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna 10m or so. |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
I have a Sony 7600GR I bought from J&R a few years ago.
http://www.jr.com Thirty foot long wire antenna works ok for me. cuhulin |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 4:19 AM, RHF wrote:
... JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and most of them are prone to overload from very long wire antennas. ... That is why attenuators/narrow-filters are used. It is a simple law of physics, long antennas WILL receive signals short ones WILL NOT. No one is saying that you cannot refuse to avail yourself of better reception ... some of us just find that unacceptable ... Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 6:28 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
... ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better. Actually, I am, you are quite wrong. However, we can be quite sure you are unfamiliar with narrow filters and attenuators ... most likely, you don't even own one! Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 8:08 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
... Precisely. And a portable, like his, is particularly susceptible to overload. 30 feet of antenna, on a portable is more than enough to get his where he needs to go. Experimentation, and refinement from there, as he gets his feet wet in the hobby. You need an attenuator also? Strange, many seem to have had rather limited experience with constructing antennas which provide the best of performance ... good the subject has come up here! Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 8:45 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
... True. A normal-sized outdoor antenna far from noise would still be best, I think, but a preselector and adjustable attenuator might be necessary to avoid overload on some portables. With every good wish, Kevin. WOW! A lot of you guys, huh? Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 9:42 AM, dave wrote:
... The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4 wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum. The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna 10m or so. Physics is certain on this point. An antenna with a larger capture area will always capture a stronger signal ... arguing that is pointless. Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 6:28 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote: ... ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better. On 12/19/2010 2:37 PM, John Smith wrote: Actually, I am, you are quite wrong. Well, hard to believe that you are familiar with front end overload as you say; you had at least two posts touting a long antenna, which would overload the particular radio the OP was asking about. On 12/19/2010 2:37 PM, John Smith wrote: However, we can be quite sure you are unfamiliar with narrow filters and attenuators ... most likely, you don't even own one! Bzzzzzttt! Wrong again! Yes, I am familiar with narrow filters and attenuators -- BUT...this was totally NON-applicable to the receiver the OP was addressing. Furthermore, once the front end has reached overload, all the downstream narrow filters in the world won't do any good. And, yes, I do own a lot of radio stuff, from a 1912 loose coupler crystal set to vacuum tube ham transmitters and receivers to the latest solid state ham transceivers to vintage SWL/ham receivers. Heck, some even have 500 and 250 Hz filters that I use for RTTY and CW contesting. Regards, JS Feel free to have the last word... Regards and happy holidays, Joe |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 12:43 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
... Feel free to have the last word... Regards and happy holidays, Joe 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 |
Sony AN-LP1 Portable Active Antenna -discontinued-in-usa- Availablein Japan
On Dec 19, 4:58*am, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, 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. So here's my questions: I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind? Kevin, WB4AIO. - Sony used to make a cool folding loop for that radio. Sony AN-LP1 Active Antenna http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/3676.html - You'd just hang it in a picture window. As shown on a Window http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...nt/3676win.jpg |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On Dec 19, 11:36*am, John Smith wrote:
On 12/19/2010 4:19 AM, RHF wrote: ... JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and most of them are prone to overload from very long wire antennas. ... - That is why attenuators/narrow-filters are used. -*It is a simple law of physics, long antennas WILL - receive signals short ones WILL NOT. - - No one is saying that you cannot refuse to avail - yourself of better reception ... some of us just find - that unacceptable ... - - Regards, - JS JS, First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio +plus+ Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna Third = Nothing Extra Required No Attenuators No Antenna Tuners No Pre-Selectors -wrt- Radio + Antenna + Ground & Matching Transformer just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 2:05 PM, RHF wrote:
... First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio +plus+ Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna Third = Nothing Extra Required No Attenuators No Antenna Tuners No Pre-Selectors -wrt- Radio + Antenna + Ground & Matching Transformer just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF . . It is simply physics. A long antenna will ALWAYS receive better and more signals than a small one, even an amplified small one! If you are happy with a small antenna, fine. It is only necessary for all to know how to get the best and/or more signals -- the choice is theirs ... Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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. |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 9:42 AM, dave wrote: ... The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4 wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum. The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna 10m or so. On 12/19/2010 2:42 PM, John Smith wrote: Physics is certain on this point. An antenna with a larger capture area will always capture a stronger signal ... arguing that is pointless. Regards, JS But nobody is arguing that. NOT "pointless"; rather it is exactly the point. Field strength is measured in volts per meter or micro volts per meter (of antenna length). Nobody is denying the point that you are locked in on, namely that a longer antenna will give a stronger signal. This is indeed true...but it is also THE PROBLEM (with the receiver specified by the OP). The stronger signal from the longer antenna will overload the front end of the receiver in question. THAT is the problem. And no, a down stream (IF filter) is not the answer. Due to the front end overload, the signal reaching the IF filter will -already- be damaged. 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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 12/19/2010 2:51 AM, John Smith wrote: I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya' think? ROFLOL Regards, JS ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better. On 12/19/2010 3:14 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote: "More antenna" can be accommodated with pre-selectors and attenuators, whereas less antenna can only generate wishes. OK Bob...please explain why I would want to go to the trouble of building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in the first place. |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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. 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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 5:09 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
... OK Bob...please explain why I would want to go to the trouble of building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in the first place. Well, I can help with that. Others, apparently NOT you, will want to receive signals with the shorter antenna is just incapable of, for starters ... Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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. |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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. |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
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 |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 9:38 PM, RHF wrote:
... 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 . . Actually, no. Instead, it is like this, a crystal radio with an elaborate antenna can receive EVERY signal the most expensive radio (or Ferrari, for that matter) can ... once you have the signal you can do anything you wish with it ... the KEY being, you need the signal! Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 9:51 PM, RHF wrote:
... - 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 . If it has a the Local/DX switch, you can use this as a "Decent Antenna Detector." When you never have to take the switch off of local, you will know you have a decent antenna ... ROFLOL Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/19/2010 9:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
... 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. ... Regards, JS And, I forgot to mention lightening protection, and take the antenna lose and toss it out a window if there is going to be lightening! Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On Dec 19, 9:47*pm, John Smith wrote:
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. * JS, Each functions equally 'as well' based on their relative size. Practically speaking as the Antenna Size/Length Increases the "Usability" of the Signals 'developed' by it may improve to a point -but- beyond that the added {more more more} Size/Length of the Antenna may then start to cause other problems that off-set any increase in Size/Length. Optimum Performance = Optimal Size/Length practically speaking 'results matter' ~ RHF |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/20/2010 8:52 AM, RHF wrote:
... JS ?"liars"? : Did I Call You A 'Liar' ? ~ RHF i hear what i hear -cause- i take the time . . . to listen to the radio ~ RHF . You can probably best answer that, yourself. Read your own words ... I don't see you stating me, specifically. Now read my words, again, I don't see myself claiming you called ME a liar ... If you are having difficulty with even that, no wonder antennas are much more difficult for you ... Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/20/2010 10:07 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
... Probably the two words of 'language' that's so far been omitted are - 'capture area'! A bigger net will capture more fish even if you decide to throw most of them back. I think it's better to have enough catch to be able to throw some back than bemoaning an empty net. Well, I can certainly understand where they are coming from. When getting started in radio, I battled with small antennas from the get-go. First off, I was 15 years old. My mother didn't want me climbing great heights or stinging unsightly wires about the property. Luckily, I interested my father in the hobby ... soon real antennas started happening! One advantage I had back then, which may be lacking today, is that there were a LOT of people interested in SW and Amateur Radio, even CB. In visiting others stations and listening posts, it became quite apparent, those with the longer higher antennas were receiving signals I was totally missing ... there is much truth in the phrase, "Seeing is believing." Capture area is a major factor, and I did mention it earlier in a post a few dozen back, or so ... combined with sufficient antenna, matchboxes, baluns, filters/notch-filters, tuners, etc. one can end up with very impressive results! But, the guy who just wants to pull out a whip on a portable and catch what he can is just as valid ... if it is something you want to hear and the signal is good, it is all good. Just never hurts to know what is possible, if you ever want to explore in that direction ... Regards, JS |
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
C2C is for when you want to get some sleep.Fortunately, doggy and I hit
the sack before midnight.Aints missin nuttin either. cuhulin |
Holy crap you guys O_O I've never seen so much bickering over antennas in my life.
I'm pretty confused now. I have a small-ish budget 20-50 to spend on an antenna, what should I get? Something small? Something large? Although I'm rather confused, I thank you for the replies. Also, I'd like something that isn't much of an eyesore, as I live in a suburb. |
Well, my dad said he'd help me put an antenna on the roof. So what would you guys recommend for a vertical antenna? Can my radio handle it? I don't have a BNC plug on my portable.
|
Hello! Introduction and a few questions
On 12/20/2010 11:09 AM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
John Smith wrote: But, the guy who just wants to pull out a whip on a portable and catch what he can is just as valid ... if it is something you want to hear and the signal is good, it is all good. Just never hurts to know what is possible, if you ever want to explore in that direction ... I certainly wasn't trying to invalidate the 'casual' listener, ... I am sorry if you read my words, like tea leaves, and came to that conclusion. However, I am NOT one to mince words, if I have something to say, I will say it outright and the consequences be damned! I am mostly in agreement with you. I use a portable with a whip frequently, myself ... and the old DX-392 beside my bed simply uses a small grundig loop ... gets the talk radio stations clear, which I find favor with ... But, I didn't take anything you have said to invalidate anyone at all. I was simply giving the span and breadth of the range of listeners out there and noting that the hardware they would need would be vastly differing ... some will even buy a radio, use it for a week and let it live in a closet for years. Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com