Antenna for shortwave reception
PJ
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
Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi PJ,
With your location in Sweden, a long wire should pick up a lot of
stations unless you are buried deep in a valley. That long wire can
be as simple as 10 meters of wire with a clip to attach it to the whip
of the Sangean. When I was in Africa last year, that was enough to
fill my cheap SW set with signals from everywhere in Africa up into
Europe. Toss the wire out a window up into a tree. It is at least a
cheap, first attempt to see if you need anything more than that.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
bpnjensen
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:46:07 -0800 (PST), PJ <norah...@gmail.com>
Should be very careful when connecting the whip to the ATS-909 antenna
with a metal clip - the radio is quite sensitive and should be turned
off while "clipping". For my connection, I just wound a coil of
insulated wire that would slip over the whip - the inductance alone is
enough to bring in signals strongly, and avoids the chance of possible
static and internal damage. About 20 turns is enough to get you
started; wind more if you want a stronger signal.
Bruce
Telamon
<ca35ef0a-0a9b-4db8...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
bpnjensen <bpnj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 10:23 am, Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:46:07 -0800 (PST), PJ <norah...@gmail.com>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > With your location in Sweden, a long wire should pick up a lot of
> > stations unless you are buried deep in a valley. That long wire can
> > be as simple as 10 meters of wire with a clip to attach it to the whip
> > of the Sangean. When I was in Africa last year, that was enough to
> > fill my cheap SW set with signals from everywhere in Africa up into
> > Europe. Toss the wire out a window up into a tree. It is at least a
> > cheap, first attempt to see if you need anything more than that.
> >
>
> Should be very careful when connecting the whip to the ATS-909 antenna
> with a metal clip - the radio is quite sensitive and should be turned
> off while "clipping". For my connection, I just wound a coil of
> insulated wire that would slip over the whip - the inductance alone is
> enough to bring in signals strongly, and avoids the chance of possible
> static and internal damage. About 20 turns is enough to get you
> started; wind more if you want a stronger signal.
I always recommend some kind of closed loop antenna for portables as it
will help avoid the static electricity issue. This can be a large
circular loop, square loop or folded dipole.
Don't bring the amateur antenna group into these discussions. That group
has a bunch of key clowns in it.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> 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
Idiot, he said connect an antenna to the whip. Now you propose he
drills a hole though the battery compartment of the radio to gain access
to some sort of ground; or else, do a DIY antenna somewhere on the case
by dismantling the radio?
Now I remember why I wrote you off as a total idiot ...
Regards,
JS
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> 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.
An amateur idiot answered with the clip a wire to the whip comment,
idiot.
> Now you propose he drills a hole though the battery compartment of
> the radio to gain access to some sort of ground; or else, do a DIY
> antenna somewhere on the case by dismantling the radio?
Well that shows to everyone the news group that you are a complete
idiot. I suggest you go post somewhere else idiot.
> Now I remember why I wrote you off as a total idiot ...
Brainless worthless key clown. You don't understand what you post about
so you take shots at people like me that do. Must be tough to be you.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
< SNIP >
> Now I remember why I wrote you off as a total idiot ...
Just another ignorant cowardly retard with a gmail account posting from
a open server. What a big surprise.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
You are the worst fool I have run into in any of the electronics groups,
and, right up there with the worst-of-the-worst from other groups ...
obviously, a trained tech who has never had in-depth math, science and
physics education ... sorry, so very, very sorry ... :-(
However, that is only my humble opinion. I am sure you can produce even
more uneducated fools which will claim to kiss yer' arse ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Just another ignorant cowardly retard with a gmail account posting from
> a open server. What a big surprise.
>
Another idiotic, know-it-all, remark which leaves your ignorance hanging
in a sea of stupidiy ... albasani is a free server, set up to provide
free speech (however, some idiots just feel better when the pay for free
things, to them, and you, I say, go for it!--I do not waste a second of
my time protecting idiots from themselves. Most computer savvy would
use such ... and the Gmail? Most computer savvy would also use it,
along with Thunderbird and K9 (K9 makes gmail spam filtering fool
proof--if one is savvy enough to set it up correctly ... ) And, perhaps
the main reason why, I can pass out my email with absolutely immunity to
angry/childish-fools/spam/phishing/scams/etc. ...
Sounds like you know about as much about software applications as you do
antennas--however, I do realize your plight, if you only spoke about
those things you had a valid/up-to-date education in, you would have to
remain silent, IMHO ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> In article <girqat$4c2$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> < SNIP >
>
>> Now I remember why I wrote you off as a total idiot ...
>
> Just another ignorant cowardly retard with a gmail account posting from
> a open server. What a big surprise.
>
However, I did think his radio was a "cheapie" with no real antenna
jack. And, since the Ant-60 comes with an alligator clip so it can
attached to the whip, it only reinforced "my guess." And, if that were
not enough to lead me astray, someone else recommended a long wire
attached to the whip (a "fix" I frequently use on radios I travel with,
although I do use a current balun to provide improved performance on
most SW freqs by taking the, generally, low impedance of the long wire
and matching it to the multi-kilo-ohm impedance of the whip ...
No problem though, since having first hand experience with the Ant-60,
and if it were mine, I would toss it in the trash, attach a ~60 ft, and
get it in the air as high as possible, sanely taking into consideration
the environment I am deploying it in. Then provide the antenna with a
suitable DC ground, 1mh choke, or so, across the jack to grnd ... again,
better, IMHO ... (I have to admit, the reel is handy on the Ant-60, I
have to wind mine up around a short length of 8" PVC pipe.) Very handy
"dangled" out the porthole of a ship ...
It would give him increased reception and eliminate any danger of any
type of voltage on the "hot" antenna ...
Regards,
JS
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's sum this up shall we.
I give good information to the OP asking for advice and you give what?
Nothing.
You misconstrue what the OP wrote, what the amateur key clown wrote and
then confronted with this say I'm the problem. Hilarious!
You are a retard with a major comprehension problem.
> However, that is only my humble opinion. I am sure you can produce even
> more uneducated fools which will claim to kiss yer' arse ...
And it looks like you have an anal preoccupation.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
> > In article <girqat$4c2$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > < SNIP >
> >
> >> Now I remember why I wrote you off as a total idiot ...
> >
> > Just another ignorant cowardly retard with a gmail account posting from
> > a open server. What a big surprise.
> >
>
> However, I did think his radio was a "cheapie" with no real antenna
> jack.
Mistake one.
> And, since the Ant-60 comes with an alligator clip so it can
> attached to the whip, it only reinforced "my guess."
Mistake two.
> And, if that were not enough to lead me astray, someone else
> recommended a long wire attached to the whip
You mislead yourself - mistake three.
> (a "fix" I frequently use on radios I travel with, although I do use
> a current balun to provide improved performance on most SW freqs by
> taking the, generally, low impedance of the long wire and matching it
> to the multi-kilo-ohm impedance of the whip ...
That's all very nice but has nothing to do with your previous
contentious posts.
> No problem though, since having first hand experience with the Ant-60,
> and if it were mine, I would toss it in the trash, attach a ~60 ft, and
> get it in the air as high as possible, sanely taking into consideration
> the environment I am deploying it in. Then provide the antenna with a
> suitable DC ground, 1mh choke, or so, across the jack to grnd ... again,
> better, IMHO ... (I have to admit, the reel is handy on the Ant-60, I
> have to wind mine up around a short length of 8" PVC pipe.) Very handy
> "dangled" out the porthole of a ship ...
>
> It would give him increased reception and eliminate any danger of any
> type of voltage on the "hot" antenna ...
That's all very nice smith but you are still a cowardly anonymous
Trolling idiot. Go redeem yourself elsewhere as I'm not interested jerk.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Just another ignorant cowardly retard with a gmail account posting from
> > a open server. What a big surprise.
> >
>
> Another idiotic, know-it-all, remark which leaves your ignorance hanging
> in a sea of stupidiy ...
No, moron, I made a know something post which you elected not to do.
> albasani is a free server, set up to provide
> free speech
Which you abuse.
> (however, some idiots just feel better when the pay for free
> things, to them, and you, I say, go for it!-
You are just chock full of bad assumptions aren't you. I'm using my
ISP's news server, which costs nothing "extra".
> I do not waste a second of my time protecting idiots from themselves.
Oh my! What superiority complex you have! It's just to bad for you it
is an empty threat.
> Most computer savvy would use such ... and the Gmail? Most computer
> savvy would also use it, along with Thunderbird and K9 (K9 makes
> gmail spam filtering fool proof--if one is savvy enough to set it up
> correctly ... ) And, perhaps the main reason why, I can pass out my
> email with absolutely immunity to
> angry/childish-fools/spam/phishing/scams/etc. ...
Yes, you are savvy enough to be an anonymous Trolling idiot.
I'm savvy enough to use one handle with an email address from my ISP and
use my ISP's news server.
> Sounds like you know about as much about software applications as you do
> antennas--however, I do realize your plight, if you only spoke about
> those things you had a valid/up-to-date education in, you would have to
> remain silent, IMHO ...
I don't use antenna software programs to do "antennas" as the
calculations are just algebraic and can be done on calculators but I
could understand why you would need them as a crutch.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> I don't use antenna software programs to do "antennas" as the
> calculations are just algebraic and can be done on calculators but I
> could understand why you would need them as a crutch.
>
Well, it is fun, to every once-in-a-while, unplonk you, give yas' a nice
kick-in-the-teeth, then plonk you again ... and the time has come ... ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
[... and more chit]
Here is a review:
" Sangean ANT-60 Portable Short Wave
Handy reel type wire antenna for portable shortwave radios increases
sensitivity and improves reception. The wire is slightly on the thin
side but it's sturdy and well made. An clip adaptor is included for
radios without a 1/8" mini-jack that allows you to connect the reel
antenna directly to the radio's external antenna ..."
Obviously, he/she purchased one which worked identical to the POS I had ...
And, as per my last post, a time to plonk has come ... not really a
troll here, but the mentally handicapped are hard to resist, set up and
you are in for one "bonkers session!" <grin>
Regards,
JS
John Smith
[even more chit]
plonk ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
[more chit]
<yawn> plonk ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
[totally worthless chit]
<eyelids drooping> plonk ... <ZZZzzzz...>
Regards,
JS
John Smith
[... loads of pure crap]
<yawn> Did someone say something?
final plonk ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
One last thing, here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000023VW2
It show the "alligator clip adapter" to go from the male 1/8 phono plug
to the clip ... if you live in glass houses, don't throw stones ... IDIOT!
Regards,
JS
SC Dxing
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.
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> [more chit]
>
> <yawn> plonk ...
Don't go away mad, just go away idiot.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, you are kind of funny in a perverse way. You don't came across an
idiot with a superiority complex every day.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> [totally worthless chit]
>
> <eyelids drooping> plonk ... <ZZZzzzz...>
>
Dozing off are we? Attention span around 10 minutes or less? Make no
mistake, and you have made plenty, you have been asleep all along jerk.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> [... loads of pure crap]
>
> <yawn> Did someone say something?
>
> final plonk ...
The final what? fantasy?
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> [... and more chit]
I give an informed opinion and you give copy and paste. How wonderful of
you to make that effort.
> Here is a review:
> " Sangean ANT-60 Portable Short Wave
> Handy reel type wire antenna for portable shortwave radios increases
> sensitivity and improves reception. The wire is slightly on the thin
> side but it's sturdy and well made. An clip adaptor is included for
> radios without a 1/8" mini-jack that allows you to connect the reel
> antenna directly to the radio's external antenna ..."
>
> Obviously, he/she purchased one which worked identical to the POS I had ...
The POS is the individual (you) holding the radio. The radio is is just
fine.
> And, as per my last post, a time to plonk has come ... not really a
> troll here, but the mentally handicapped are hard to resist, set up and
> you are in for one "bonkers session!" <grin>
Do us all a favor and leave the news group idiot.
Nobody needs a know nothing copy and paste artist around.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
<6bf5ddc9-4e11-412f...@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
SC Dxing <scd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Again I edited the news group header.
By all means experiment with antennas. You can learn a lot this way but
what you find that "works" for you is dependent on your local noise
environment.
The antenna jack has two contacts that work with the plug barrel and
tip. The barrel is the radio ground. You can use these two contacts with
a complete antenna like a dipole or loop antenna or you can connect a
single wire antenna to the tip and the barrel to a ground rod or wire on
the ground under the single wire. If your noise environment is fairly
low then this could work well. If not then you can try other antenna
types.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
> > Telamon wrote:
> >
> > [more chit]
> >
> > <yawn> plonk ...
> >
> > Regards,
> > JS
> >
>
> One last thing, here is a link:
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000023VW2
The OP wrote he has this antenna Mr. comprehension impaired.
> It show the "alligator clip adapter" to go from the male 1/8 phono plug
> to the clip ... if you live in glass houses, don't throw stones ... IDIOT
Oh great, more copy and paste from you and not even original in this
thread.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
> 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,
So your objective is to 'buy' a relatively low cost
Antenna for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL)
to use with your Sangean ATS-909 World Receiver.
Check-Out the / Sangean ATS-909 Users Group
-aka- RadioShack DX-398 Users Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DX398/
Consider using a "Portable Wire Antenna" with your
Sangean ATS-909 AM/FM Shortwave Radio :
http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc/portablewire.html
* WebPage presented by Tom Sevart, N2UHC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/09c73c4c94625fc7
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/a789c8fd6fcb38f2
First "About" the Antenna Input of the Sangean
ATS-909 AM/FM Shortwave Radio :
The Sangean ATS-909 uses a 1/8" Stereo Jack
for the External Antenna Input.
Barrel = Circuit-Board-Ground (RF Signal Ground)
Tip = Shortwave Antenna RF Signal Input
Middle-Ring = AM/MW Antenna RF Signal Input
READY-MADE - Shortwave Listener (SWL) Antenna
that fits into the 45 Foot Long Range is the Par
Electronics EF-SWL Antenna. [~$75US]
It come with the Matching Transformer and 45 Feet
of Flex-Weave Wire Antenna Element; and all you
need to do is Install your Ground Rod; Rig the Wire
Antenna Element; and Attach your Coax Cable.
http://www.parelectronics.com/swl_end.htm
http://www.grove-ent.com/ANT8.html
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/2205.html
The Par EF-SWL is a moderate size Inverted "L"
Antenna with 'low noise' characteristics : The PAR
is the simplest Antenna for most of these 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radios and lends itself to the
Inverted "L" Antenna configuration of about 45 Feet
long with a 15 Foot Vertical-Up-Leg and a 30 Foot
Horizontal-Out-Arm. With an Eight Ground Rod
at the base and a Coax Cable feed-in-line.
NOTE - Your biggest problem with using a Coax
Cable with your Shortwave Antenna is coming up
with an "Adapter" or Jumper Cable from the Coax
Connector to the Radio's 1/8" Stereo Jack.
Here is another 'low cost' SWL Antenna listed on eBay
"Super Longwire All Band SW. Antenna and 9:1 Balun"
http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ180315835723
* Has 80 Feet of Antenna Wire with a 9:1 Matching
Transformer; plus 50 Feet of Coax Cable.
* Rig as much of the 80 Feet of Antenna Wire in the
Inverted "L" Configuration
* Add an 8-foot Ground Rod
* Run the Coax Cable to you Radio
hope this helps - iane ~ RHF
.
Dave
> In article <girqat$4c2$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> 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.
>
Telamon
Dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
I have one of those. Good unit for the price.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
JB
budget, because it costs $466... I am looking for something a lot
cheaper... :-) If it is recommended to replace the ANT-60, that is.
This is my favorite:
http://www.antenna.it/military/log-periodic.htm
But seriously folks, the cheapest for me was busting open a junk TV for the
deflection coils. A qrp type ham antenna tuner will certainly help. Easy
to build L type by using an AM tuning cap and hind wound coil on toilet
paper roll. Use a piece of scrap brass for a slider. Put the whole thing
on a block of wood and use clip leads to change it around for the best
signal.
The earphone jack can often be used for a ground point.
RHF
> On Dec 23, 9:46 am, PJ <norah...@gmail.com> 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
>
> PJ,
>
> So your objective is to 'buy' a relatively low cost
> Antenna for Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL)
> to use with your Sangean ATS-909 World Receiver.
>
> Check-Out the / Sangean ATS-909 Users Group
>
> Consider using a "Portable Wire Antenna" with your
> Sangean ATS-909 AM/FM Shortwave Radio :http://www.geocities.com/n2uhc/portablewire.html
>
> First "About" the Antenna Input of the Sangean
> ATS-909 AM/FM Shortwave Radio :
> The Sangean ATS-909 uses a 1/8" Stereo Jack
> for the External Antenna Input.
> Barrel = Circuit-Board-Ground (RF Signal Ground)
> Tip = Shortwave Antenna RF Signal Input
> Middle-Ring = AM/MW Antenna RF Signal Input
>
> READY-MADE - Shortwave Listener (SWL) Antenna
> that fits into the 45 Foot Long Range is the Par
> Electronics EF-SWL Antenna. [~$75US]
> It come with the Matching Transformer and 45 Feet
> of Flex-Weave Wire Antenna Element; and all you
> need to do is Install your Ground Rod; Rig the Wire
>
> The Par EF-SWL is a moderate size Inverted "L"
> Antenna with 'low noise' characteristics : The PAR
> is the simplest Antenna for most of these 'portable'
> AM/FM Shortwave Radios and lends itself to the
> Inverted "L" Antenna configuration of about 45 Feet
> long with a 15 Foot Vertical-Up-Leg and a 30 Foot
> Horizontal-Out-Arm. With an Eight Ground Rod
> at the base and a Coax Cable feed-in-line.
>
> NOTE - Your biggest problem with using a Coax
> Cable with your Shortwave Antenna is coming up
> with an "Adapter" or Jumper Cable from the Coax
> Connector to the Radio's 1/8" Stereo Jack.
>
> Here is another 'low cost' SWL Antenna listed on eBay
> "Super Longwire All Band SW. Antenna and 9:1 Balun"http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ180315835723
> * Has 80 Feet of Antenna Wire with a 9:1 Matching
> Transformer; plus 50 Feet of Coax Cable.
> * Rig as much of the 80 Feet of Antenna Wire in the
> Inverted "L" Configuration
> * Add an 8-foot Ground Rod
> * Run the Coax Cable to you Radio
>
> hope this helps - iane ~ RHF
> .
SWL -Newbies- Installing an Inverted "L" Antenna : The Right-Way !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/27ca62e0c0e838ea
Wellbrook "Low Noise Antenna" 'design concept' using two
components they manufacture: the Universal Magnetic Balun
(UMB) and the Antenna Feed Isolator (Feed-Line-Isolator).
.
WHY - The Far-End-Fed Shortwave Listener's (SWLs) Inverted "L"
Antenna
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/22cfc6b9cb2447c0
.
Best Small Backyard Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antenna ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ba46e197884dc563
.
SWL's - Taking the ZigZag Out of Your Back Yard Antenna . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9a465fcd41857f17
.
Next the 'improved' "Windom" Off-Center-Fed Dipole Antenna
for-the Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) - iane ~ RHF
.
Deleted : Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna
.
John Smith
Huh, you triggered some memories. Best antenna I ever had was when I
was very young, probably ~8-10 years old, or so. Long-wire which ran
diagonally to property lines of my parents. And, certainly, longer than
120 ft. That antenna filled the bands, as I remember!
No baluns, no matching, no knowledge of what I consider now, krist, it
was most likely a very poor match to the input on the Collins,
Hallicrafters, Zeniths, Gonsets, etc. which it was hooked to. But, ya'
know what? Those were the best times of my life. And, to be absolutely
truthful with you, I did hope to hear aliens--as well as military,
gov't, etc. Some, I accomplished--but, no aliens which I am aware of
... :-(
But, I never have had that much fun in my whole life, since those times
... the rest of life has been rather easy.
I only hope youngsters can still find the same ... :-)
Regards,
JS
JIMMIE
>
> - Show quoted text -
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
John Smith
> ...
> 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
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...
PJ
dxAce
PJ wrote:
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
JB
Same age-- I ran the wire into a transistor radio and would tweak the
trimmers to go above the broadcast band. Finally got a five band radio,
then upgraded to a Hallicrafters S-110. Most of my vast entertainment
center (set of shelves along my longest wall) was rescued/repaired/cobbled
from junk, and open cabinets and exposed lethal voltages were part of the
mistique. My finger was the best signal generator/voltmeter I owned. By
High School I had my Advanced and 2nd phone and was into Remote Bases, HF,
RTTY and especially liked working on stuff with multiple squelch tails.
Then came computers. I guess I never really outgrew that stuff after all.
KC8QJP
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cua2l4553a7tvsfs3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:46:07 -0800 (PST), PJ <nora...@gmail.com>
> 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
>>budget, because it costs $466... I am looking for something a lot
>>cheaper... :-) If it is recommended to replace the ANT-60, that is.
>>
>
> Hi PJ,
>
> With your location in Sweden, a long wire should pick up a lot of
> stations unless you are buried deep in a valley. That long wire can
> be as simple as 10 meters of wire with a clip to attach it to the whip
> of the Sangean. When I was in Africa last year, that was enough to
> fill my cheap SW set with signals from everywhere in Africa up into
> Europe. Toss the wire out a window up into a tree. It is at least a
> cheap, first attempt to see if you need anything more than that.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
>
>
try the superskyhook sloper it works wonders over hear!
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ykgg05.jpg
mary xmas
pli...@telkomsa.net
PJ you can't get Antartica anymore as Ace says, but there are lots
more challenging AFN stations to seek out and have fun with. Sadly the
WRTH does not list them conveniently but you can see the full
shortwave spread at:
http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/ShortWave.aspx
You have had lots of blah blah on antenna's, but for your 909 I
wouldn't use anything other than the ANT-60 you have, otherwise you
will overload it and possibly blow the front end.
If you like AM BCB MW DX you might find one of the cheap tuneable
loops provided by the big dealers such as Martin Lynch or Universal of
some help.
Have fun and good listening
John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
ERGO software
Drake SW8. Sangean 803A
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop.
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx
bpnjensen
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <girqat$4c...@news.albasani.net>,
> John Smith <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> 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.
>
>
> > 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
BCBlazysusan
>
> - 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.
RHF
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
Chico
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-9...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <gis16j$cat$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Telamon wrote:
>>
>> [more chit]
>>
>> <yawn> plonk ...
>
> Don't go away mad, just go away idiot.
The king of idiots...is caling others idiots.
Is this going to start again?
Rick O'Brien
"Telamon" <telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
Telamon
<47de813e-5414-44f0...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
PJ <nora...@gmail.com> 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
Roy Lewallen
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. A quick
test for this condition is to disconnect the antenna. If the noise
decreases, it means that atmospheric noise is greater than receiver
noise -- the usual case -- and efficiency improvements won't help any.
They'll just increase both the signal and noise by the same amount,
which won't help you a bit in hearing any signals.
To improve reception, you have to improve the signal to noise ratio. If
there's noise coming from a local source, for example a light dimmer or
an arcing power line, you can often reduce the noise by using a
horizontal antenna, putting the antenna away from the house and power
line conductors, and making sure the feedline is decoupled so it isn't
part of the antenna. If noise is mostly coming from a single direction,
either local or distant, an antenna with a sharp null such as a small
rotatable loop often helps. And, other rotatable antennas with a
directional pattern such as Yagis and log periodics, will help if the
signal and at least some of the noise are coming from different
directions. If a fixed antenna is on the order of a half wave or longer,
you might get lucky and have a null pointed at a noise source. The null
will usually change direction with frequency, though, so it'll likely
only do the trick over a narrow range of frequencies. This can actually
be a bad thing, because when somebody gets lucky like this, he'll often
tout the antenna as being nearly miraculous in its performance, but no
one else will be able to duplicate the results.
Enjoy your shortwave listening. It's how I and probably most amateurs
got started in this fascinating hobby.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
John Smith
> 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.
> Roy Lewallen, W7EL
>
I differ; although, I can understand why Roy would reply in such a
simplistic manner ...
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. :-)
Warm regards,
JS
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <47de813e-5414-44f0-b96a-d877eaa51...@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
PJ - Telamon Is Right :o)
i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
{sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}
.
IMHO the Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna people are
good people -but- They 'focus' on two disciplines :
Power Output Handling -and- Ability To Hear
[Cause They Both Transmit and Listen]
-while- The Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL) is also
'focus' on two disciplines : Improved Signal plus Noise
Reduction -aka- Better Signal-to-Noise (S/N) Ratio
[Cause They "Only' Listen and Do Not Transmit]
Read these Posts here on Rec.Radio.Shortwave about
the Low Noise Shortwave Radio Antenna Concepts that
were 'popularized; by John Doty for Shortwave Radio
Listeners (SWLs) - about 74 Posts . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/search?q=Low+Noise+Concepts+John+Doty+RHF&start=0&scoring=d&
.
Here are the Three Key Posts :
.
# 1 - SWL Longwire -by- John Doty
[ Shortwave Listener (SWL) Longwire Antenna ]
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9e3dd73e36381d46
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9e3dd73e36381d46
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204024006/http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html
* Actually, a fixed matching transformer can dramatically
reduce the wild swings in antenna efficiency that a coax
fed wire antenna exhibits.
.
# 2 - Low Noise Antenna Connection -by- John Doty
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1cde8bb62764b23a
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1cde8bb62764b23a
http://web.archive.org/web/20030701222251/anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/low-noise_antenna.html
* The difference between a mediocre antenna system and
a great antenna system isn't the antenna itself: it's
the way you feed signals from the antenna to the receiver.
* The real trick with a shortwave receiving antenna system
is to keep your receiver from picking up noise from all
the electrical and electronic gadgets you and your
neighbors have.
.
# 3 - Grounding Is Key To Good Reception -by- John Doty
http://www.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5fd8fe1179a5c6c8
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5fd8fe1179a5c6c8
http://web.archive.org/web/20030605064509/anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/grounding.html
* With grounds the most common experience is
"the more the merrier".
* The method I use is to ground the cable shield at
two ground stakes and bury the cable in between.
.
hope this helps - iane ~ RHF {pomkia}
.
Are You Interested in building a better Shortwave Listening
(SWL) Antenna ? {SWL Group} = http://tinyurl.com/ogvcf
GoTo = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortwave-SWL-Antenna/
.
RHF's Standard "Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) Antennas Group"
Reference Message Signature-Line = http://tinyurl.com/25zbrg
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/411dac3b4a1798e0
.
* Remember 55.5% of Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL)
is the Shortwave Antenna = http://tinyurl.com/ogvcf
.
RHF's Radio Shack in Twain Harte, California -USA-
SHACK INFO = http://tinyurl.com/2skmxm
Shortwave Radio / Receiver and SWL Antenna Info
.
.
RHF
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
.
.
John Smith
> ...
> 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
RHF
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
.
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> 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
BCBlazysusan
> 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.
John Smith
> ...
> 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
John Smith
>> ...
> - - - 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
dxAce
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.
John Smith
> ...
> 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
mi...@sushi.com
> 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.
Dave
A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
the feed point.
Dave
I don't recognize "politician" as being a monolithic culture. There are
decent ones and there are many more shit-heads, but that holds true for
society in general.
JB
> 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
Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
tune it electrically. After all, you may want to tune around some. I can
tell you it is a pain to have to go out and physically make adjustments for
any frequency excursion. There are many nonresonant length antennas that
outperform the resonant length. The 5/8 wave vertical comes to mind. A
long-wire provides a larger capture area. Then there are phased arrays that
reinforce. Look up the HAARP project and see how they made a very large
array and were able to electrically steer the pattern. Cool!
The more you know, the cheaper it gets, and the more you giggle when it
works. The only problem is you get hooked and want to do so much more.
Dave
Dave
You are not "pumping" any more "power" into a non-resonant antenna.
Unless you are using a tuner you are heating up your finals.
Cecil Moore
> Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
> tune it electrically.
Actually, tuning it "electrically" *is* tuning the antenna
*system* to resonance. When I vary my ladder-line length
to achieve system resonance, I am using my feedline as a
series tuning section. When one achieves a Z0-match with a
tuner or by other means, one is tuning the antenna system
to resonance which, in a near-lossless system, results in
near-conjugate match and near-maximum power transfer in
either direction (assuming the receiver input impedance
equals the Z0-match impedance).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Billy Burpelson
John Smith wrote:
> I ain't here to be a ham ...
Dave wrote:
> A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely if you use a tuner at
> the feed point.
Say what?
He said he "ain't here to be a ham", so why would he want to transmit?
Billy Burpelson
dxAce wrote:
> Efficiency matters just as much on receive as it does on transmit.
Hmmmm...you present us with a difficult choice. Do we believe Roy, world
renowned antenna expert and author of EZNEC, a world famous antenna
analysis program or do we believe Steve Lare, master of...what???
Decisions, decisions... ;-)
RHF
- A random wire (e.g. inverted L) transmits nicely
- if you use a tuner at the feed point.
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
http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/invertedl.html
http://www.antennex.com/preview/archive3/ltv.htm
* Yes a "Tuner" can help on other bands.
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.
* Again the Wellbrook Drawing
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/images/antright.gif
http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/longwire.html
as usual it's the 'l' if i know - iane ~ RHF
.
nm...@wt.net
>
> > 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 :o)
No he's not. He's a bigger horses ass than nearly
anyone on rraa.. :/
And that's a fact. Only "John Smith" might give him
a run for his money in that dept. :/
But I'm not a whiner like Telamon, and try to tell
people what groups to use, or avoid.
They have horses asses of some kind on all the
groups. I just ignore *them*. Not the whole group.
It's like "John Smith". I think he's a horses ass,
but I don't try to tell him where to go, or others to
avoid him. I just lets the chips fall where they may.
Most people don't need me to help them decide
who is a horses ass, and who is not.
It becomes fairly obvious with the passage of time.
:/
>
> i am a trolling idiot and i approve of his post ;-} ~ RHF
> {sa-prez : trolling idiots-r-us}
I won't argue...
> .
> IMHO the Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna people are
> good people -but- They 'focus' on two disciplines :
> Power Output Handling -and- Ability To Hear
> [Cause They Both Transmit and Listen]
>
> -while- The Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL) is also
> 'focus' on two disciplines : Improved Signal plus Noise
> Reduction -aka- Better Signal-to-Noise (S/N) Ratio
> [Cause They "Only' Listen and Do Not Transmit]
>
This is purely cheap ground luncheon loaf... IE: bologna
Radio reception is radio reception. It does not matter
if one is a ham, or SWL, or whatever. The rules do not
change due to the type of service being received.
I almost never worry about power handling. Most of
my antennas will take way more power than I would
ever use. It's rarely even a consideration.
What is "ability to hear"? It's basically the same thing
as S/N ratio. In this regard, there is no difference
what type of service is received, S/N ratio is equally
important.
> Read these Posts here on Rec.Radio.Shortwave about
> the Low Noise Shortwave Radio Antenna Concepts that
> were 'popularized;
> .
> Here are the Three Key Posts :
> .
> # 1 - SWL Longwire -by- John Doty
> * Actually, a fixed matching transformer can dramatically
> reduce the wild swings in antenna efficiency that a coax
> fed wire antenna exhibits.
But! that will rarely effect the S/N ratio on the shortwave
bands. Like Roy said, if you can disconnect the antenna,
and the background noise noticeably drops , you have
plenty of signal. Adding a better match will rarely
increase the S/N ratio on HF, because the desired signal
and the undesired noise increase at an equal level.
You have pumped up the S meter readings, but you
have not improved the actual S/N ratio.
When I use my large multi band dipoles for SW reception
on 49 meters, do you think I bother with a tuner?
Nope.. Total waste of time being I already have way
more signal than I would ever need even if looking into
a large mismatch.
> .
> # 2 - Low Noise Antenna Connection -by- J
> * The difference between a mediocre antenna system and
> a great antenna system isn't the antenna itself: it's
> the way you feed signals from the antenna to the receiver.
> * The real trick with a shortwave receiving antenna system
> is to keep your receiver from picking up noise from all
> the electrical and electronic gadgets you and your
> neighbors have.
I can't argue with this. But trust me, hams are no different
than SWL's when it comes to trying to reduce local noise
pickup. This is just common sense, and not a practice
only used by SWL's. :/
> .
> # 3 - Grounding Is Key To Good Reception
Now, this part here is just plain ole horse manure.
Grounding is not a "key" to good reception, unless you
are using an antenna that requires a ground connection
in order to complete the antenna.
Or the grounding is to further decouple the feed line
from the antenna. But you don't require a ground
to decouple a feed line. It's just one method commonly
used with random length antennas fed with a coax
feed line.
None of my wire antennas require a ground connection
as they are complete antennas unto themselves.
Ground can actually be a source of noise in many
cases.
To sum, some make a mountain out of a molehill. :/
Richard Clarks simple solution of just adding more wire
to the whip on the radio is likely to work just as well
as anything proposed so far. If local noise is a
problem, then he might consider feeding an outside
wire with a decoupled feedline.
Anything further than that is likely S meter pumping
overkill.
RHF
"N",
Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.
50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102499
"n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
.
.
nm...@wt.net
>
> "N",
>
> Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
> of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
> then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
> use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
> Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
> can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
> to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.
Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
anything? We are not talking about transmitting.
We are talking about receiving, "or at least I am", and
the rules do not change when you vary the frequency a
few mhz.
And there are more than one ways to skin a cat with a
given piece of wire. If I had a portable that normally used
a whip antenna for SW, I would be much more likely to
take that zip cord and split it totally apart to make a
single 100 ft wire. I would simply clip it onto the whip.
I bet my version would be the better performer of the
two, low bands for sure. But this has nothing to do
with what I'm listening to. If I'm listening on a ham rig,
and I'm not transmitting, I'm a SWL the same as anyone
else. :/
And most certainly so if I'm listening to a broadcast band
like 31m, or whatever. Do you think I play by different
rules than you if we are both listening to 31m at the same
time?
I hope not... :/
Sure, you can make a quite decent and usable SWL
antenna from nothing but a piece of wire, or zip cord.
But that is not a requirement to be a ®real SWL.
How would you like to try listening to 19m DX on my
tri-band yagi, which is still close enough to 20m, to
give pretty danged good performance and some F/B?
With that, why would I want to use a zip cord antenna?
It boggles the mind... :/
And I'm talking receive, not transmit. We'll pretend the
mike and keyer have been superglued to a tango-
uniform status.
But I guess being I'd rather use my full size yagi and
have a bit of F/B ratio, which improves S/N ratio, which
is the whole purpose of this topic, I'm not a ®real SWL..
Chortle.. :/
You two guys kill me... You really do.
>
> 50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
> RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102499
Uh.. I know where to buy wire.. :/
>
> "n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
> difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
No, there isn't. Not when it comes to receiving.
To propose otherwise is just ludicrous.
I listen to all the same bands you do at some
time or another. I was a rabid SWL when I was in
jr. high school. That was nearly 40 years ago.
I started DXing AM-BC when I was 8 years old
and got my first mighty six transister radio for my
birthday.
It's the main reason I'm a ham now. Just a natural
progression... In other words, I might have been
born yesterday, but not last night. :/
Telamon
Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelsonafb.net> wrote:
Hundreds of Dx catches on antennas and BALUNs he made himself would be
what.
> Decisions, decisions... ;-)
Academic or empirical, tough choice.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
> tune it electrically. After all, you may want to tune around some. I can
> tell you it is a pain to have to go out and physically make adjustments for
> any frequency excursion. There are many nonresonant length antennas that
> outperform the resonant length. The 5/8 wave vertical comes to mind. A
> long-wire provides a larger capture area. Then there are phased arrays that
> reinforce. Look up the HAARP project and see how they made a very large
> array and were able to electrically steer the pattern. Cool!
>
> The more you know, the cheaper it gets, and the more you giggle when it
> works. The only problem is you get hooked and want to do so much more.
Actually, this is a total misconception.
Download EZNEC or MMANA-GAL. Plugin the figures for a 1/4 wave physical
antenna "loaded" to 1/2 wave, examine the radiation pattern ...
Now, do the same for a full 1/2 wave physical length antenna and examine
the pattern ...
But then, I am sure you suspected, you can't take a 2 ft. antenna and
electrically resonate it to some other physical length, and have it
preform as the full physical length version ... if this were possible,
everyone would have little one inch antennas on their rigs ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> "n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
> difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
> .
> .
>
Simply a pipe dream ...
The same antenna which transmits the MOST EFFICIENT signal possible,
will also receive the signal the MOST EFFICIENTLY (given measuring
parameters remain the same for both modes, i.e., T/R) ... smaller gauge
components with far less power ratings can be used for receiving
antennas--that is the most important difference, and actually, the only
important one(s.)
However, I can see how some would come the the conclusion(s) you have.
In cheap receivers, you really don't know what ohm impedance the antenna
jack REALLY is. It may say 50 ohms and be 100, 200 ... 500 etc. Least,
that has been my experience ... when you get into professional gear,
costing thousands, they can take the time and aim for accuracy.
Regards,
JS
Telamon
Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote:
This ever so helpful to the OP receiving antenna problem.
This was precipitated by the news group clown RHF who changed the
subject from "Antenna for shortwave reception" to the current "Re:
Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) Antennas -versus- Amateur Radio Antennas"
Good job Trolling jackass RHF.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> 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
John Smith
> ...
> Say what?
>
> He said he "ain't here to be a ham", so why would he want to transmit?
Well, consider me a "different type of ham." In that, I always
construct my antennas to receive the best signal for the application at
hand, ALWAYS--transmitting is only a secondary consideration. As, I
have never found an antenna which has been found to receive the most
efficiently fail to do so in xmit mode. Given both xmitter and receiver
have the same input impedances ...
I do, frequently, see hams adjust the antenna, and its' type, for the
xmitter--and the best readings which can be obtained in that mode. I
pay far more attention to how the antenna receives ... I can always
crank up power on this end, should I ever find it necessary--I don't
know what the guys capabilities on the other end is/are ...
Regards,
JS
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
The reciprocal properties are not all that should be considered.
You neglect capture area for receiving as more important.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Like cell phones.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> 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 ...
Yeah but we don't care about transmitting goofball, we care about
receiving and so that statement "A random wire (e.g. inverted L)
transmits nicely if you use a tuner at the feed point" by Dave is
relevant where you are not.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Billy Burpelson wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Say what?
> >
> > He said he "ain't here to be a ham", so why would he want to transmit?
>
> Well, consider me a "different type of ham."
< SNIP >
Yeah, you are a Trolling Ham and a well done one at that.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Dave
>
> 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/Product.php?productid=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.
Dave
John Smith
> ...
> 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
John Smith
>> ...
> 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
John Smith
> ...
> I don't recognize "politician" as being a monolithic culture. There are
> decent ones and there are many more shit-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
Dave
"Pray tell"?
Alas and alack. Zounds!
Unfortunately, your editing is a bit severe and I have no idea what
you're talking about.
John Smith
> ...
> Actually there is no reason TO have a resonant length antenna if you can
> tune it electrically. After all, you may want to tune around some. I can
> tell you it is a pain to have to go out and physically make adjustments for
> any frequency excursion. There are many nonresonant length antennas that
> outperform the resonant length. The 5/8 wave vertical comes to mind. A
> long-wire provides a larger capture area. Then there are phased arrays that
> reinforce. Look up the HAARP project and see how they made a very large
> array and were able to electrically steer the pattern. Cool!
>
> The more you know, the cheaper it gets, and the more you giggle when it
> works. The only problem is you get hooked and want to do so much more.
>
Well, examine a mechanical tuning fork. They are cut to an exact
physical length for resonance, the are very sharp tuning. Now, it would
be possible to "lengthen" such a tuning fork with some coil of material,
or portion of a turn of material. There is a reason for this; as,
although it could be done, it would not be as efficient as one cut to
the exact length; plus, you would induce a high probability of increased
harmonics as a freq(s) which the fork was not created to induce ...
there are exact equivalents in the electrical world of RF ...
As you point out, physical length resonance is NOT a requirement ... it
is simply "best" ...
Regards,
JS
RHF
> 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.
John Smith,
OK then what is a 'matchbox' in :
* a poorly designed transmitting antenna,
* a mismatched transmitting antenna,
* a non-physically resonate transmitting antenna,
Consider the 'matchbox' to be one element
in the RF Energy Radiating System :
Feed-Line + 'matchbox' + Antenna Element
i want to know - iane ~ RHF
.
>
Dave
You pretend to be powerless to fight this...
John Smith
> John Smith wrote:
>> 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
>
> the feed point.
A resonate 1/4 wave dipole transmits "nicely" and uses no lossy tuner
... a resonate 1/4 wave vertical monopole, with drooping ground plane,
transmits "nicely", requires no lossy tuner, and is damn near a perfect
match to 50 ohm coax ...
A 1/2 wave version of either of the above produces a superior pattern
and can be matched with either a T-match or gamma-match ... indeed, a
very minimal counterpoise is all which is necessary--and, if things are
"perfect", not even that is needed, or simply a choke on they outside of
the coax a ~1/4 wave away from feed point. A 5/8 is non-resonate
physical length, and even demonstrates a superior pattern (at least on
paper and with antenna prediction software ... )
However, in side-by-side comparisons on 10-6-2m antennas I have built,
comparing a 5/8 against the 1/2 (construction methods/materials and
matching components identical) ... the actual difference, in the real
world, must be less than the width of a meter needle in the readings ...
or, put simply, I no longer deal with the extra length required of the
5/8 ... your mileage may vary ...
Regards,
JS
Telamon
Dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
He thinks transmitting and receiving antenna engineering is the same
thing and reciprocity rules all consideration thereof capture area be
damned. That's what happens when you have a pointy head. Go ahead
though as he loves to argue about pointless things.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
Dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
Funny guy that Smith. He has entered the gray area of opinion as to what
is best.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> "N",
>
> Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
> of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
> then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
> use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
> Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
> can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
> to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.
>
> 50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
> RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102499
>
> "n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
> difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
> .
> .
>
I have taken ordinary lamp zip cord, split the two leads apart to for a
1/4 wave dipole and fed the end of the remaining length of zip cord with
a balun to the rig (some zip cord is ~68-72 ohm balanced line, the
mismatch is more than acceptable for field/emergency use.)
Never, say never ... some ham will do it!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
> Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
> anything? We are not talking about transmitting.
> ...
It has EVERYTHING to do with it, it is the same communication, both
ways, simply in reverse ... like I have stated before, the exact same
laws of physics governing the antenna makes it equally acceptable to
both transmitting and receiving. The same pattern seen in the signal
transmitted will be seen in the signal(s) received.
Your argument is the equivalent to arguing that a car designed to go
forward would not be acceptable when backing up ... simply ridiculous!
Regards,
JS
Telamon
Dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
John Smith
> ...
> You pretend to be powerless to fight this...
My single voice IS powerless against the sheer magnitude of the
onslaught I would launch it against. However, the power of my voice
combined with thousands, tens-of-thousands, hundreds-of-thousands ... of
other voices eventually can and does make changes; and, is as it should be.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>
> OK then what is a 'matchbox' in :
> * a poorly designed transmitting antenna,
> * a mismatched transmitting antenna,
> * a non-physically resonate transmitting antenna,
>
> Consider the 'matchbox' to be one element
> in the RF Energy Radiating System :
> Feed-Line + 'matchbox' + Antenna Element
>
> i want to know - iane ~ RHF
> .
>
It would be far more "in the realm of correct" to consider what a
matchbox DOES, rather than what it IS--as it is simply some combination
of inductive and capacitive components which ALWAYS will induce some
form of loss into any system it is inserted into.
However:
*a matchbox will allow you to use a poorly designed/constructed
antenna--it will NOT improve the antenna.
*a matchbox will allow you to "match" differing impedances to achieve
proper power transfer to the antenna--again, it will NOT improve the
efficiency of that antenna, and the power will be "simply lost" (as heat.)
*a matchbox CAN allow you to alter the electrical length of an
antenna--physical and electrical lengths are two different animals.
And, this is all-in-a-nut shell; as you realize, a proper education in
this field is NOT a trivial thing.
That said, I frequently carry a cheap portable with me on trips and
launch a longwire into a tree, etc., find acceptable signals and enjoy
listening ... or else, just grab the SW stations audio from the net ...
being an old-timer, the first is more enjoyable, for me.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> "Pray tell"?
>
> Alas and alack. Zounds!
>
> Unfortunately, your editing is a bit severe and I have no idea what
> you're talking about.
Well, if you can't remember your own text, nor your "side" of an
argument, between posts--I think it is all for moot ...
Regards,
JS