RHF wrote:
"N",

Its about 'effective communication' as John Doty posted earlier
in this thread.

I think I've fairly well communicated my thoughts on the matter...
Thats all I intended to do. But it seems some have problems with even
that..
Every time I post something here, I get a load of @$#^$*%('s climbing
down my back. Get over it! If you disagree with something I say, fine.
I have
no problems with that. But to harp just because I won't dumb myself
down to
your "supposed" r.r.s.w. monkey level status, really starts to grate on
my nerves.

The average Shortwave Listener (SWL) who owns a Shortwave Radio
and WANTS More-Out-of-It; simply wants to 'know':

I'm not an "average" shortwave listener, and I don't claim to cater to
them.
Actually, I don't claim to cater to anyone....It's not my job.

- What to Buy and How to Put It Up.

That will stir more conflict than this thread....:/

- Or - What to Build and How to Do It.

I think the user should decide that. Not some guy 1000 or more miles
away...
Only he knows what he really wants or needs..I have no problems telling

someone how to build something, but for the most part, it's all been
covered a
zillion times over...Thats why they sell books. Thats why I have books.


- NO Rhyme-or-Reason is Required [.]

I can't live that way myself. I refuse to be "dumbed down" to trained
monkey
level, just because this is a shortwave listeners group. If I get too
technical for some,
"which I really don't think I do", or I get anal retentive because
people
keep calling certain antennas "low noise", they can just ignore it.
Many people *do* want
to know the truth,or maybe a little more detail about certain things.
They may not reply
to any of the posts.
Many people read the stuff,that never actually post. It's not like I
use a bunch of
fancy named mumbo jumbo, or obtuse theories designed to confuse people.
If they want to
call them "lower noise antenna systems", I'd have less problem with
that. But as I
said, I don't consider simply decoupling a feedline as making it a "low
noise" antenna
system. Even if that could be the end result for some. It's just acting
normally without
the common currents screwing up the operation.
If you take a milked down stock 302 ford engine with say 150 hp when
running
normally, and 2 plugs are fouled, allowing only 110 hp out, changing
all the plugs
does not make the engine a blueprinted 400 hp race engine. It will now
run properly with
the new plugs, but it will still be the same stock 150 hp engine. This
probably won't make much sense
to you, but that's a fairly fitting analogy I think...
The decoupled antenna system is just acting normally. The un-decoupled
antenna system
is not. It's a defective system. It would be more accurate to call such
a system a "high noise" system, than
it is to call the decoupled system "low noise". Or to me anyway...
I just want to make sure people understand that the lower noise they
experience
is due to decoupling the feedline from the antenna, and has nothing to
do with
the antenna itself. I'm sure many already realize this. But it seems
fairly obvious many
don't. I'm also sure not *everyone* wants to live in the dark like a
mushroom.
I make no apologies for being anal retentive. That is my job.




[ Please - Just Tell Me - What To Do ]

Why? It's not my job....:/ You should already be fairly well set up
anyway
judging from all the links you post ...

MK

MK,

All of what you have written defines You 'being' YOU !
{and that is Good}

All of what I have written defines Me 'being' ME !
{and that is Good}
..
i guess we are communicating - pal ~ RHF
..
..

Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips coming!
Bruce Jensen

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips
coming!

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips
coming!

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

http://www.harger.com/catalog2004/4_3_1.pdf has examples of typical Andrews
Wire Co produced shield grounding kits. It is advisable to cover with
waterproofing materials any connection that is exposed to the weather. There
is also no such " changing of the interaction of the two conductors by
changing it's form..."

Btw, my "noise limiting antenna" comes from an old design published in Fine
Tuning's Proceedings, in which one side of a dipole-type Balun is grounded
at the feedpoint (also on the ground) and the longwire antenna is connected
to the Balun's other antenna connection. Coax feedline comes out the bottom
of the Balun, and is shield grounded twice for lightning protection: once at
the Balun and another time before it enters the station.

Besides an excellent and very quiet listening antenna, this is also a
transmitter. It has worked over 500 miles on 2 Mhz and 3,000 miles on 8 Mhz.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach Virginia

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:J%sud.3067$7p.1654@lakeread02...

"Michael Lawson" wrote

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

http://www.harger.com/catalog2004/4_3_1.pdf has examples of typical
Andrews
Wire Co produced shield grounding kits. It is advisable to cover
with
waterproofing materials any connection that is exposed to the
weather. There
is also no such " changing of the interaction of the two conductors
by
changing it's form..."

I dredged up my old Halliday and Resnick text, and
took a look. Yes, you are correct. The important part
is the shield surrounding the core.

Btw, my "noise limiting antenna" comes from an old design published
in Fine
Tuning's Proceedings, in which one side of a dipole-type Balun is
grounded
at the feedpoint (also on the ground) and the longwire antenna is
connected
to the Balun's other antenna connection. Coax feedline comes out the
bottom
of the Balun, and is shield grounded twice for lightning protection:
once at
the Balun and another time before it enters the station.

Besides an excellent and very quiet listening antenna, this is also
a
transmitter. It has worked over 500 miles on 2 Mhz and 3,000 miles
on 8 Mhz.

Thanks for the info.

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:J%sud.3067$7p.1654@lakeread02...

"Michael Lawson" wrote

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

http://www.harger.com/catalog2004/4_3_1.pdf has examples of typical
Andrews
Wire Co produced shield grounding kits. It is advisable to cover
with
waterproofing materials any connection that is exposed to the
weather. There
is also no such " changing of the interaction of the two conductors
by
changing it's form..."

I dredged up my old Halliday and Resnick text, and
took a look. Yes, you are correct. The important part
is the shield surrounding the core.

Btw, my "noise limiting antenna" comes from an old design published
in Fine
Tuning's Proceedings, in which one side of a dipole-type Balun is
grounded
at the feedpoint (also on the ground) and the longwire antenna is
connected
to the Balun's other antenna connection. Coax feedline comes out the
bottom
of the Balun, and is shield grounded twice for lightning protection:
once at
the Balun and another time before it enters the station.

Besides an excellent and very quiet listening antenna, this is also
a
transmitter. It has worked over 500 miles on 2 Mhz and 3,000 miles
on 8 Mhz.

Thanks for the info.

--Mike L.


No problem Mike. Btw, the grounding blocks work fine too, I use them under
the house. But out in the field, and on towers particularly, the coax shield
ground kits can be easier to handle. Nothing stopping you from making your
own kit either, I just like Andrews products, already cut for your size
cable, etc.

Cheers,

Jack