Hello! Introduction and a few questions
garrett1415
Hey Folks,
I'm Garrett. I'm new here, so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
I'm relatively new to the hobby, I recently bought my first shortwave
receiver, a Sony ICF-SW7600GR. I'm living in Michigan currently, and
I'm a Junior in High School.
So here's my questions:
I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the
included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up
anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any
insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind?
Second,
Has anyone been able to pick up Voice of Korea in the midwest? Where
could I find a current schedule online?
Thanks!
-Garrett
--
garrett1415
John Smith
A 100+ ft antenna, approx 30+ feet in the air will, most likely, provide
you with what you really want to hear. If you are able to expand on the
length and/or height, don't be afraid to do so ...
Regards,
JS
D Peter Maus
On that rig...that's way too much antenna. 30' is more like it.
Against a good earth ground.
Kevin Alfred Strom
Garrett:
These days, there is so much interference from computers, switching
power supplies, et cetera, that any indoor antenna is going to
compel you to suffer from severe noise on the shortwave bands.
I'd echo what John said, and emphasize that getting the antenna as
high and as far from electronics and other noise sources as possible
is advisable. Make sure your feedline is shielded coaxial cable so
_it_ doesn't act as an antenna when it enters your house or apartment.
The exact length isn't as important (though it does affect the
frequency response and pattern) as getting it out and in the clear.
Here's an article on constructing a simple dipole antenna.
http://www.angelfire.com/mb/amandx/dipole.html
The coaxial feed can be any length. Two trees could hold it up (or
one tree if you make it an inverted V shape and support it in the
middle).
Even though the dipole works best at its resonant frequency, for SWL
use you'll find it does quite well from 50% to ten times that frequency.
Cable TV coax (RG-59 or RG-6) will work fine for the feedline and is
cheap, and any fairly rugged wire (like #14 house wire available at
hardware stores) will work for the antenna itself.
Welcome to shortwave and best of luck,
Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
John Smith
> ...
>
> On that rig...that's way too much antenna. 30' is more like it.
> Against a good earth ground.
> ...
Some people drive a Volkswagen, some people a Stingray, some people a
Ferrari ... however, I have always found "less is more" a rather
interesting fantasy ... and then I wake up, and live in the REAL world.
Regards,
JS
RHF
wrote:
Garrett1415,
The Sony ICF-SW7600GR 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave
Radio is still one of the better 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave
Radios available today.
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/0360.html
.
For an External Shortwave Radio Listening (SWL) Antenna
start simple by buying one of theses Sangean ANT-60
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/3184b.jpg
Wind-Up / Roll-Up Shortwave Radio Antennas
http://www.wisementrading.com/radios/sw_antennas.htm
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/3184.html
which is designed to plug right into the 3.5mm jack
for the Radio's External Antenna. :o) ~ RHF
-or- Kaito AN-03L Shortwave Antenna
http://www.kaitousa.com/Antenna.htm
http://cgi.ebay.com/380253377574
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00066Z9XG
-or- Tecsun AN-05 Shortwave Antenna
http://cgi.ebay.com/270633339019
.
No Direct 'Connection' may be required to your
Radio 'think' Inductive Coupling . . .
.
-read-
Using the "Portable Wire Antenna" (PWA)
with your 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/a789c8fd6fcb38f2
.
-read-
Usually a 'shorter' 30-35 Foot long Random
Wire Antenna works better with most
'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radios
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/cff50876212c6786
.
-read-
Two Things that most 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave
Radios Could Use for "Improved" Shortwave Radio
Listening (SWL)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/423b6d9bcdb872a8
.
hope this helps - iane ~ RHF
.
Some Say : On A Clear Day You Can See Forever.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortwave-SWL-Antenna/
I BELIEVE : On A Clear Night...
You Can 'Hear' Forever and Beyond - The Beyond !
.
.
John Smith
>> ...
I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why
they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya'
think? ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
user
> Where
> could I find a current schedule online?
>
> Thanks!
> -Garrett
>
Here:
--
--
What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go!
http://shortwave.tk
700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk
300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages.tk
RHF
JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and
most of them are prone to overload from very long
wire antennas.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f18e19152cc1946c
Hence these recommendations. ~ RHF
.
Using the Portable Wire Antenna" (PWA) by Tom Sevart [N2UHC]
with your 'portable' AM/FM/ Shorwave Radio
http://www.reocities.com/n2uhc/portablewire.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortwave-SWL-Antenna/message/1728
-per- Tom Sevart [N2UHC] This is an antenna
I put together after having problems with overload
on my Sony portable Shortwave Receiver.
.
.
RHF
> garrett1415 wrote:
> > Where
> > could I find a current schedule online?
>
> > Thanks!
> > -Garrett
>
> Here:
> --
> --
Voice of Korea [DPRK] English "B10" Fall/Winter 2010/11
Shortwave Radio Broadcast Schedule
http://www.northkoreatech.org/2010/11/05/voice-of-korea-english-b10-schedule/
.
Voice of Korea Shortwave Radio Frequencies
and Broadcast Sites Currently On-the-Air
http://www.short-wave.info/?station=Voice%20of%20Korea
.
.
dave
> On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, garrett1415 wrote:
>> Hey Folks,
>> I'm Garrett. I'm new here, so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
>> I'm relatively new to the hobby, I recently bought my first shortwave
>> receiver, a Sony ICF-SW7600GR. I'm living in Michigan currently, and
>> I'm a Junior in High School.
>>
>> So here's my questions:
>> I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the
>> included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up
>> anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any
>> insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind?
>>
>
>
> Kevin, WB4AIO.
Sony used to make a cool folding loop for that radio. You'd just hang it
in a picture window.
Joe from Kokomo
> I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why
> they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya'
> think? ROFLOL
>
> Regards,
> JS
...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better.
D. Peter Maus
Precisely. And a portable, like his, is particularly susceptible
to overload.
30 feet of antenna, on a portable is more than enough to get his
where he needs to go.
Experimentation, and refinement from there, as he gets his feet
wet in the hobby.
Kevin Alfred Strom
True. A normal-sized outdoor antenna far from noise would still be
best, I think, but a preselector and adjustable attenuator might be
necessary to avoid overload on some portables.
With every good wish,
Kevin.
dave
The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4
wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum.
The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna
<10m or so.
cuh...@webtv.net
http://www.jr.com Thirty foot long wire antenna works ok for me.
cuhulin
John Smith
> ...
>
> JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and
> most of them are prone to overload from very long
> wire antennas.
>> ...
That is why attenuators/narrow-filters are used. It is a simple law of
physics, long antennas WILL receive signals short ones WILL NOT.
No one is saying that you cannot refuse to avail yourself of better
reception ... some of us just find that unacceptable ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
> concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better.
Actually, I am, you are quite wrong.
However, we can be quite sure you are unfamiliar with narrow filters and
attenuators ... most likely, you don't even own one!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Precisely. And a portable, like his, is particularly susceptible to
> overload.
>
> 30 feet of antenna, on a portable is more than enough to get his where
> he needs to go.
>
> Experimentation, and refinement from there, as he gets his feet wet in
> the hobby.
>
>
>
You need an attenuator also? Strange, many seem to have had rather
limited experience with constructing antennas which provide the best of
performance ... good the subject has come up here!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
>
> True. A normal-sized outdoor antenna far from noise would still be best,
> I think, but a preselector and adjustable attenuator might be necessary
> to avoid overload on some portables.
>
>
> With every good wish,
>
>
> Kevin.
WOW! A lot of you guys, huh?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4
> wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum.
>
> The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna
> <10m or so.
Physics is certain on this point. An antenna with a larger capture area
will always capture a stronger signal ... arguing that is pointless.
Regards,
JS
Joe from Kokomo
> On 12/19/2010 6:28 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
>> ...
>> ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
>> concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better.
On 12/19/2010 2:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Actually, I am, you are quite wrong.
Well, hard to believe that you are familiar with front end overload as
you say; you had at least two posts touting a long antenna, which would
overload the particular radio the OP was asking about.
On 12/19/2010 2:37 PM, John Smith wrote:
> However, we can be quite sure you are unfamiliar with narrow filters and
> attenuators ... most likely, you don't even own one!
Bzzzzzttt! Wrong again!
Yes, I am familiar with narrow filters and attenuators -- BUT...this was
totally NON-applicable to the receiver the OP was addressing.
Furthermore, once the front end has reached overload, all the downstream
narrow filters in the world won't do any good.
And, yes, I do own a lot of radio stuff, from a 1912 loose coupler
crystal set to vacuum tube ham transmitters and receivers to the latest
solid state ham transceivers to vintage SWL/ham receivers. Heck, some
even have 500 and 250 Hz filters that I use for RTTY and CW contesting.
> Regards,
> JS
Feel free to have the last word...
Regards and happy holidays,
Joe
John Smith
> ...
> Feel free to have the last word...
>
> Regards and happy holidays,
> Joe
All but the most blatant newbies should be able to deal with a "too good
an antenna."
Because of disinformation and "wives tales", I suspect there are many
with a tiny 30 ft. antenna who think they are realized "good reception"
and feeling quite capable of advising others.
It is simply time to fix this ...
Regards,
JS
RHF
> Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
> > On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, garrett1415 wrote:
> >> Hey Folks,
> >> I'm Garrett. I'm new here, so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
> >> I'm relatively new to the hobby, I recently bought my first shortwave
> >> receiver, a Sony ICF-SW7600GR. I'm living in Michigan currently, and
> >> I'm a Junior in High School.
>
> >> So here's my questions:
> >> I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the
> >> included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up
> >> anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any
> >> insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind?
>
> > Kevin, WB4AIO.
- Sony used to make a cool folding loop for that radio.
Sony AN-LP1 Active Antenna
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/3676.html
- You'd just hang it in a picture window.
As shown on a Window
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/3676win.jpg
.
You can still find them on eBay sold
out of Japan . . .
Sony AN-LP1 Portable Active Antenna
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/140489258272
* http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sony-AN-LP1-Portable-Active-Antenna-/140489258272?pt=Shortwave_Radios&hash=item20b5cff520
.
From this eBay Seller "BuyFromJapan"
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/buyfromjapan
-for- Sony Antennas
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/buyfromjapan/_i.html?_nkw=antenna&submit=Search&_sid=54829801
.
.
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 4:19 AM, RHF wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > JS - It is a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio and
> > most of them are prone to overload from very long
> > wire antennas.
> >> ...
- That is why attenuators/narrow-filters are used.
- It is a simple law of physics, long antennas WILL
- receive signals short ones WILL NOT.
-
- No one is saying that you cannot refuse to avail
- yourself of better reception ... some of us just find
- that unacceptable ...
-
- Regards,
- JS
JS,
First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
+plus+
Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna
Third = Nothing Extra Required
No Attenuators
No Antenna Tuners
No Pre-Selectors
-wrt- Radio + Antenna + Ground & Matching Transformer
just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF
.
.
John Smith
> ...
> First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
> +plus+
> Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna
>
> Third = Nothing Extra Required
> No Attenuators
> No Antenna Tuners
> No Pre-Selectors
>
> -wrt- Radio + Antenna + Ground & Matching Transformer
>
> just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF
> .
> .
It is simply physics. A long antenna will ALWAYS receive better and
more signals than a small one, even an amplified small one!
If you are happy with a small antenna, fine. It is only necessary for
all to know how to get the best and/or more signals -- the choice is
theirs ...
Regards,
JS
Joe from Kokomo
> All but the most blatant newbies should be able to deal with a "too good
> an antenna."
>
> Because of disinformation and "wives tales", I suspect there are many
> with a tiny 30 ft. antenna who think they are realized "good reception"
> and feeling quite capable of advising others.
>
> It is simply time to fix this ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
IS about too poor of a receiver front end.
Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.
Joe from Kokomo
> On 12/19/2010 9:42 AM, dave wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The antenna on a good portable is an active. It must be shorter than 1/4
>> wave at the highest frequency of interest to work at its optimum.
>>
>> The EXT jack on a 7600 should be able to handle a proper wire antenna
>> <10m or so.
On 12/19/2010 2:42 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Physics is certain on this point. An antenna with a larger capture area
> will always capture a stronger signal ... arguing that is pointless.
>
> Regards,
> JS
But nobody is arguing that.
NOT "pointless"; rather it is exactly the point.
Field strength is measured in volts per meter or micro volts per meter
(of antenna length).
Nobody is denying the point that you are locked in on, namely that a
longer antenna will give a stronger signal. This is indeed true...but it
is also THE PROBLEM (with the receiver specified by the OP).
The stronger signal from the longer antenna will overload the front end
of the receiver in question. THAT is the problem. And no, a down stream
(IF filter) is not the answer. Due to the front end overload, the signal
reaching the IF filter will -already- be damaged.
To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
going to attenuate anyway.
Best regards and happy holidays,
Joe
Joe from Kokomo
On 12/19/2010 3:14 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
> "More antenna" can be accommodated
> with pre-selectors and attenuators,
> whereas less antenna can only generate wishes.
OK Bob...please explain why I would want to go to the trouble of
building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate
that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and
cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in
the first place.
John Smith
> ...
> You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
> IS about too poor of a receiver front end.
>
> Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
> END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.
All I get is that you missed the importance of attenuators (heck, a
couple of variable resistors will do.)
Indeed, most decent radios already have an RF Gain control on them ...
this will be quite helpful.
Why you are making a non-problem into a problem and arguing for small
antennas is simply perplexing! To say the least!
And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> OK Bob...please explain why I would want to go to the trouble of
> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate
> that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and
> cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in
> the first place.
Well, I can help with that. Others, apparently NOT you, will want to
receive signals with the shorter antenna is just incapable of, for
starters ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
>
> To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
> alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
> going to attenuate anyway.
>
> Best regards and happy holidays,
> Joe
The larger antenna will simply pick up signals which the smaller antenna
cannot ... difficult concept, for some, it seems ...
Regards,
JS
Joe from Kokomo
> On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
>> ...
>> You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
>> IS about too poor of a receiver front end.
>>
>> Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
>> END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.
On 12/19/2010 8:15 PM, John Smith wrote:
> All I get is that you missed the importance of attenuators (heck, a
> couple of variable resistors will do.)
Again, you miss the point. Why should the OP build a longer antenna for
his receiver and then attenuate the signal before it gets to the receiver?
> Indeed, most decent radios already have an RF Gain control on them ...
> this will be quite helpful.
The OP wasn't asking about *most* receivers. The answer given by me and
others for HIS receiver and HIS specific question is correct.
> Why you are making a non-problem into a problem and arguing for small
> antennas is simply perplexing! To say the least!
Please don't be too perplexed. I am not arguing in general for small
antennas. I AM saying a large antenna is not the correct antenna for the
OP's specific receiver in question. Period. What don't *you* understand
about that?
> And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...
Again you are addressing the -general- case. For the -specific- receiver
the OP actually asked about, a 300 foot antenna would be a disaster.
Joe from Kokomo
> On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
>> alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
>> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
>> going to attenuate anyway.
>>
>> Best regards and happy holidays,
>> Joe
On 12/19/2010 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote:
> The larger antenna will simply pick up signals which the smaller antenna
> cannot ... difficult concept, for some, it seems ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
Yes, you are right, it will pick up signals a smaller antenna will not.
On this we agree.
The "difficult concept" that *you* keep overlooking is that FOR THE
RECEIVER THE OP ASKED ABOUT, the front end of said receiver, is *not*
designed for a very long antenna.
If you have a communications receiver with good front end selectivity,
the longer antenna will indeed be better. However, that was *not* the
type of receiver the OP was asking about.
To summarize, in the *general* case, you are correct that a longer
antenna is better; in the *specific* case that the OP actually asked
about, longer is NOT better. You seem to keep addressing the general
case while I and others are actually addressing the OP's specific case.
John Smith
>> ...
> Yes, you are right, it will pick up signals a smaller antenna will not.
> On this we agree.
>
> The "difficult concept" that *you* keep overlooking is that FOR THE
> RECEIVER THE OP ASKED ABOUT, the front end of said receiver, is *not*
> designed for a very long antenna.
>
> If you have a communications receiver with good front end selectivity,
> the longer antenna will indeed be better. However, that was *not* the
> type of receiver the OP was asking about.
>
> To summarize, in the *general* case, you are correct that a longer
> antenna is better; in the *specific* case that the OP actually asked
> about, longer is NOT better. You seem to keep addressing the general
> case while I and others are actually addressing the OP's specific case.
No. You don't know how to use a long antenna with such a receiver, that
is the only problem. And, it sounds like you believe no one else is
capable and has knowledge of how to make it work just fine. And, this
all appears to place you in a position where you are either unwilling or
unable to get the skills and knowledge.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Again, you miss the point. Why should the OP build a longer antenna for
> his receiver and then attenuate the signal before it gets to the receiver?
>
Again ... to receive signals he cannot with a shorter antenna.
> ...
> The OP wasn't asking about *most* receivers. The answer given by me and
> others for HIS receiver and HIS specific question is correct.
>
Again, if you have an inferior radio, without RF Gain control and/or
attenuator ... YOU NEED TO BUILD/BUY ONE! ... if you want to get the DX
signals ...
> ...
> Please don't be too perplexed. I am not arguing in general for small
> antennas. I AM saying a large antenna is not the correct antenna for the
> OP's specific receiver in question. Period. What don't *you* understand
> about that?
A long antenna is not ONLY for some receivers, it is for all receivers
... indeed, a 1/4 wave MW antenna is over 300 FT. That is simply
balderdash you would expect from someone who has never used a decent
receiver and antenna combination!
>
>> And, for MW, a 300+ ft antenna is really needed for good DX ...
>
> Again you are addressing the -general- case. For the -specific- receiver
> the OP actually asked about, a 300 foot antenna would be a disaster.
>
I have ran some of the most sensitive receivers in the world. Your
arguments simply are false and anyone with enough experience will
immediately know it ... it is beginning to seem as if you just wish to
spin the heads of newbies ...
Now, after you have so eloquently demonstrated the need, you are
killfiled ... bye!
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 2:05 PM, RHF wrote:
>
> > ...
> > First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
> > +plus+
> > Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna
>
> > Third = Nothing Extra Required
> > No Attenuators
> > No Antenna Tuners
> > No Pre-Selectors
>
> > -wrt- Radio + Antenna + Ground & Matching Transformer
>
> > just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
- A long antenna will ALWAYS receive better and
- more signals than a small one,
- even an amplified small one!
-
- If you are happy with a small antenna, fine.
- It is only necessary for all to know how to get
- the best and/or more signals --
- the choice is theirs ...
- Regards,
- JS
JS - No Attenuator Required
-but- A Matching Transformer could help a lot . . .
1st - The External Antenna Input of most 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radios is a 1/8" Jack.
2nd - This Input is most often
NOT 300~500 Ohms Impedance
NOT 50 Ohms Impedance
-but- Closer to 72~75 Ohms Impedance
So using a Random {Long} Wire Antenna
that is closer to 300~500 Ohms Impedance
Requires an Impedance Matching Transformer
to 'match-up' the Antenna to the Radio.
Build what-ever-size how-ever-long Random
{Long} Wire Antenna you want along with
a good Earthen Ground for Safety.
Place the Antenna-Side of the 300 Ohm Matching
Transformer across the Antenna and Ground.
http://www.summitsource.com/popup_image.php?pID=7694&image=0
Connect a RG6 Coax Cable to the Radio-Side
75 Ohm of the Matching Transformer
http://www.cordsplus.com/audio_video/355_1.jpg
Run/Route the RG6 Coax Cable from the
Matching Transformer to the Radio.
-note- RG6U/Q 'Quad' Shield Coax Cable
http://www.connectworld.net/cgi-bin/dataw/CAB-RG6-Q
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3523697#
http://image.tradevv.com/2009/02/24/hfcoaxial_273234_600/coaxial-cable-rg6-f6ssvv.jpg
Connect the Coax Cable to the Radio.
yes... it is that simple - iane ~ RHF
.
.
-fwiw- an Alternative SWL Antenna* with a
'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio is :
* Random {Long} Wire Antenna to TV 300 Ohm
Twin Lead and Ground.
1 - Connect one-side of the Twin Lead to the
SWL Antenna
2 - Connect the other-side of the Twin Lead
to Ground.
3 - Run/Route the Twin Lead to the Radio
4 - Use simple TV Twin Lead to 1/8" Jack
Matching Transformer Adapter between the
Twin Lead and the Radio
http://www.bestronusa.com/images_products/TV-103.jpg
http://www.bestronusa.com/detail/index.cfm?nPID=7797
http://www.cordsplus.com/audio_video/1500.jpg
all off-the-shelf parts that you can find anywhere.
-aka- what could be simpler - iane ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > ...
> > You STILL don't get it. It is NOT an issue of "too good an antenna"; it
> > IS about too poor of a receiver front end.
>
> > Note: the OP's receiver in question is a fine receiver, BUT THE FRONT
> > END IS *NOT* DESIGNED FOR A VERY LONG ANTENNA.
>
> All I get is that you missed the importance of attenuators (heck, a
> couple of variable resistors will do.)
>
-an RF Gain control on them ...
- this will be quite helpful.
Looking for the RF Gain Control on the Sony
ICF-7600GR 'portable AM/FM Shortwave Radio :
oops,,, Opps... OOPS ! ! !
THERE AIN'T ONE - oops ~ RHF
John Smith
> ...
> JS - No Attenuator Required
> -but- A Matching Transformer could help a lot . . .
>
> 1st - The External Antenna Input of most 'portable'
> AM/FM Shortwave Radios is a 1/8" Jack.
>
> 2nd - This Input is most often
> NOT 300~500 Ohms Impedance
> NOT 50 Ohms Impedance
> -but- Closer to 72~75 Ohms Impedance
> ...
You would expect most to be aware of such things. A balun/unun is
actually a very necessary part of any antenna system ...
But, with a high and long antenna system, so is an attenuator--in most
situations. Most are going to have problems with strong signals from
closer stations, especially in MW/LW. So, for most, some type of narrow
tunable filter(s) are also going to be necessary.
In my many years of radio, it never surprises me to find those using bed
springs, balcony railings, TV masts, house wiring, etc. as antennas ...
what doesn't surprise me is their poor reception ...
With cheaper radios and portable, a band stop filter for MW is really an
absolute necessity when listening to SW ... still, I bet you can find
any number of people here who get along and suffer without them ...
plans should be available on the net, for anyone wishing to homebrew.
Regards,
JS
arthr...@webtv.net
...if the radio is capable of dealing with it. DR is usually not that
great in nearly all portables. In my area I'm just not brave enough to
hook up ANY wire antenna to my ICF-SW700G...
arthr...@webtv.net
A portable will have a hard time dealing with a 300' wire. Unless one
is located in the middle of nowhere.
arthr...@webtv.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Should have a Local/Dx attenuator switch.
John Smith
> ...
> A portable will have a hard time dealing with a 300' wire. Unless one
> is located in the middle of nowhere.
Until I moved to the city, I had a 150 FT antenna 40 FT high, in the
foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains ... that was a decent antenna
system ... it ended up being hooked up and used with every radio I
owned, during those years ... it made a Radio Shack DX-393, portable,
really come alive and have "decent ears."
And, chance are, if I could find a listing in a shortwave guide, my ICOM
would grab it!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
> owned, during those years ... it made a Radio Shack DX-393, portable,
>> ...
DX-392 rather ... I kept that radio, still have it ... one of the few
portables I valued.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions/Dxers/zipten.html
This will tame the most powerful signals ...
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 7:01 PM, RHF wrote:
>
> > ...
> > JS - No Attenuator Required
> > -but- A Matching Transformer could help a lot . . .
>
> > 1st - The External Antenna Input of most 'portable'
> > AM/FM Shortwave Radios is a 1/8" Jack.
>
> > 2nd - This Input is most often
> > NOT 300~500 Ohms Impedance
> > NOT 50 Ohms Impedance
> > -but- Closer to 72~75 Ohms Impedance
> > ...
- You would expect most to be aware of such things.
- A balun/unun is actually a very necessary part
- of any antenna system ...
JS - The Original Poster "Garrett1415" -wrote-
Hey Folks,
I'm Garrett.
I'm new here,
so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
I'm relatively new to the hobby,
I recently bought my first shortwave receiver,
a Sony ICF-SW7600GR.
I'm living in Michigan currently,
and I'm a Junior in High School.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ff116aff7d48bd64
.
John Smith
> ...
> - You would expect most to be aware of such things.
> - A balun/unun is actually a very necessary part
> - of any antenna system ...
>
> JS - The Original Poster "Garrett1415" -wrote-
> Hey Folks,
> I'm Garrett.
> I'm new here,
> so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
> I'm relatively new to the hobby,
> I recently bought my first shortwave receiver,
> a Sony ICF-SW7600GR.
> I'm living in Michigan currently,
> and I'm a Junior in High School.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ff116aff7d48bd64
> ...
Yeah, he was the only guy NOT stating that a decent antenna would not be
suitable ... he, probably, is right around the age I got my first ham
license ... should catch on rather quickly.
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 5:08 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > To anticipate your next response -- use of an attenuator -- will indeed
> > alleviate the problem. But just think for a minute: What is the point of
> > building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal that you are just
> > going to attenuate anyway.
>
> > Best regards and happy holidays,
> > Joe
>
- which the smaller antenna cannot ...
- difficult concept, for some, it seems ...
-
- Regards,
- JS
JS - Actually That Is Not True :
The Signals in the Aether Exist [.]
{In Their Own Relative Strength 'Potential'}
The smaller antenna will pick-up all the signals
that the Larger Antenna -but- at a smaller signal
level {potential} due to it's smaller physical size
and properties.
{Smaller Capture Area = Less Signal 'Potential' Gathering}
The Larger Antenna will also pick-up all the Signals
of the smaller antenna -but- at a Greater Signal
Level {Potential} due to it's Larger Physical Size
and Properties.
{Larger Capture Area = More Signal 'Potential' Gathering}
The Relative 'Local' Noise Level may prevent small
{weak} signals from being heard.
The Receiver's Noise Floor and Amplification Factor
may prevent small {weak} signals from being heard.
never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
most often other factors prevent you
from hearing them - iane ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
JfK,
Actually the Sony ICF-SW7600GR 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radio is just fine as is.
It is simply 'optimized' to use the Whip Antenna
or a small 23 Foot Reel-Up Antenna that 90+%
of the 'portable AM/FM Shortwave Radio 'users'
will be using to listen to their radios.
Simply giving the Customer the best Product
for their normal intended use.
-sort-of-like-
* Not selling a Ferrari Racer to someone who
is looking for a 4WD Off-Road Pick-Up Truck.
* Not selling a Bentley to someone who is
looking for an Open Golf-Cart.
~ RHF
.
.
John Smith
> ...
> never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
> most often other factors prevent you
> from hearing them - iane ~ RHF
> .
> .
Absolutely. Indeed, I'd even speculate that if a mosquito farts in
Australia, it causes a "disturbance" in America! And, could be
detected--with a sufficiently sensitive detector ...
However, as stated, a longer and/or higher antenna will provide stronger
and more signals.
Point being, a small antenna can never be made to function as well as a
larger antenna. And that simply translates into the longer and higher
the better ... up to a point. Very long antennas (in relation to
wavelength become directional in the direction the wire travels.)
A complete SW setup (or even a good MW DX station) with have a decent
antenna, a balun/unun and matchbox/tuner and fed with a suitable feeder
(coax is best when the feeder goes though areas susceptible to noise,) a
filter(s) able to provide rejection of unwanted signals, an attenuator, etc.
A good antenna with a mediocre receiver will beat a better receiver with
a poor antenna every time ... And, of course, you must provide the
receiver with a usable signal before you get anywhere at all ... so much
for "Radio 101."
Regards,
JS
RHF
Actually it does : some do & some don't
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/0360sv.jpg
-wrt- 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radios ~ RHF
.
John Smith
> ...
> Simply giving the Customer the best Product
> for their normal intended use.
> -sort-of-like-
> * Not selling a Ferrari Racer to someone who
> is looking for a 4WD Off-Road Pick-Up Truck.
> * Not selling a Bentley to someone who is
> looking for an Open Golf-Cart.
>
> ~ RHF
> .
> .
Actually, no. Instead, it is like this, a crystal radio with an
elaborate antenna can receive EVERY signal the most expensive radio (or
Ferrari, for that matter) can ... once you have the signal you can do
anything you wish with it ... the KEY being, you need the signal!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> - Should have a Local/Dx attenuator switch.
>
> Actually it does : some do & some don't
> http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/0360sv.jpg
> -wrt- 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radios ~ RHF
> .
If it has a the Local/DX switch, you can use this as a "Decent Antenna
Detector." When you never have to take the switch off of local, you
will know you have a decent antenna ... ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> A complete SW setup (or even a good MW DX station) with have a decent
> antenna, a balun/unun and matchbox/tuner and fed with a suitable feeder
> (coax is best when the feeder goes though areas susceptible to noise,) a
> filter(s) able to provide rejection of unwanted signals, an attenuator, etc.
> ...
> Regards,
> JS
>
And, I forgot to mention lightening protection, and take the antenna
lose and toss it out a window if there is going to be lightening!
Regards,
JS
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 9:25 PM, RHF wrote:
>
> > ...
> > never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
> > most often other factors prevent you
> > from hearing them - iane ~ RHF
> > .
> > .
>
> Absolutely. Indeed, I'd even speculate that if a mosquito farts in
> Australia, it causes a "disturbance" in America! And, could be
> detected--with a sufficiently sensitive detector ...
>
> However, as stated, a longer and/or higher antenna will provide stronger
> and more signals.
- Point being, a small antenna can never be
- made to function as well as a larger antenna.
JS,
Each functions equally 'as well' based on their
relative size.
Practically speaking as the Antenna Size/Length
Increases the "Usability" of the Signals 'developed'
by it may improve to a point -but- beyond that the
added {more more more} Size/Length of the Antenna
may then start to cause other problems that off-set
any increase in Size/Length.
Optimum Performance = Optimal Size/Length
practically speaking 'results matter' ~ RHF
.
.
John Smith
> ...
> - Point being, a small antenna can never be
> - made to function as well as a larger antenna.
>
> JS,
>
> Each functions equally 'as well' based on their
> relative size.
>
> Practically speaking as the Antenna Size/Length
> Increases the "Usability" of the Signals 'developed'
> by it may improve to a point -but- beyond that the
> added {more more more} Size/Length of the Antenna
> may then start to cause other problems that off-set
> any increase in Size/Length.
>
> Optimum Performance = Optimal Size/Length
>
> practically speaking 'results matter' ~ RHF
> .
> .
You are speaking of "The law of diminishing returns," isn't everyone
aware that, that universal law applies universally--to everything.
However, you do bring up a most necessary concept, at some point you
just have to take it for granted that everyone is aware of the things
which should have been covered in school ...
But, for ballpark figures, a 120 FT. antenna is generally accepted as
good for average SW listening. If your target is low power pirate
stations, longer is better; You should also have two antennas, one in
an east/west receiving configuration and one in a north/south
configuration--signals from Russia/China are prone to leaping the pole.
If your liking is for cross country DX of MW stations, ~330+ FT. is a
good length. If you are a lowfer, miles is not too long ...
On the longer, well insulated longwire antennas, you will notice that
the antenna will constantly maintain some sort of voltage on the wire,
if not connected, you can measure this voltage with a VTVM.
When Art Bell was in Pahrump, NV, he would frequently be able to measure
100+ volts on his extremely long loop antenna (strung around his
property on the top of telephone poles.) A suitable matching
transformer, balun/unun can be used which will bring the antenna to
ground potential ... or a couple of diodes with their polarities
reversed from one another connected to the antenna and ground (limits
this voltage to ~.7 volts), or, with a capacitor of proper
value/voltage-rating the static (dc) charge can be isolated from the
receiver.
Back in the 1960's, when I first got interested in radio, all this was
pretty much common knowledge and picked up from
magazines/hobby-publications, boy scouts, hams, others in the hobby,
radio clubs, library books on the subject, etc. -- I just thought it
would still be pretty much the same today--I am suspecting times have
changed.
Of course, my first radio was a homemade crystal radio ... and a long,
long antenna ... indeed, my antennas were only limited by space, wire on
hand, and the height I was willing to climb in trees.
Regards,
JS
Krypsis
> On Dec 19, 11:36 am, John Smith<assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2010 4:19 AM, RHF wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>> most of them are prone to overload from very long
>>> wire antennas.
>>>> ...
>
> - That is why attenuators/narrow-filters are used.
> - It is a simple law of physics, long antennas WILL
> - receive signals short ones WILL NOT.
> -
> - No one is saying that you cannot refuse to avail
> - yourself of better reception ... some of us just find
> - that unacceptable ...
> -
> - Regards,
> - JS
>
>
> First a 'portable' AM/FM Shortwave Radio
> +plus+
> Second a shorter 30~45 Foot Random Wire Antenna
>
> Third = Nothing Extra Required
> No Attenuators
> No Antenna Tuners
> No Pre-Selectors
>
>
> just keeping it simple : simple is good ~ RHF
> .
> .
and I find it to be excellent without anything more than the built in
whip and the supplied longwire antenna. The Sony even outperformed one
of my desktop rigs which was equipped with external longwire antenna and
tuner.
Note however that I use the Sony 7600 purely as a portable for when I'm
traveling and it is excellent in that usage. The audio quality is only
fair when using the built in speaker but it is improved by using
headphones. I use my desktop radios for the bulk of my DX work.
Krypsis
Krypsis
> On 12/19/2010 9:25 PM, RHF wrote:
>
>> ...
>> never-the-less the 'weak signals' e-x-i-s-t
>> most often other factors prevent you
>> from hearing them - iane ~ RHF
>> .
>> .
>
> Absolutely. Indeed, I'd even speculate that if a mosquito farts in
> Australia, it causes a "disturbance" in America! And, could be
> detected--with a sufficiently sensitive detector ...
>
> However, as stated, a longer and/or higher antenna will provide stronger
> and more signals.
>
> Point being, a small antenna can never be made to function as well as a
> larger antenna. And that simply translates into the longer and higher
> the better ... up to a point. Very long antennas (in relation to
> wavelength become directional in the direction the wire travels.)
>
> A complete SW setup (or even a good MW DX station) with have a decent
> antenna, a balun/unun and matchbox/tuner and fed with a suitable feeder
> (coax is best when the feeder goes though areas susceptible to noise,) a
> filter(s) able to provide rejection of unwanted signals, an attenuator, etc.
The original poster has a PORTABLE RADIO. I doubt he would want to
permanently tether it to a "complete SW setup".
>
> A good antenna with a mediocre receiver will beat a better receiver with
> a poor antenna every time ... And, of course, you must provide the
> receiver with a usable signal before you get anywhere at all ... so much
> for "Radio 101."
>
> Regards,
> JS
>The 7600 series work rather well out of the box. If the OP's radio
doesn't seem to pick up much, I'd be inclined to compare it against a
known receiver that is working well. That will at least determine if the
radio is working properly at least.
Krypsis
RHF
> Joe from Kokomo wrote:
> >On 12/19/2010 2:51 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> >> I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why
> >> they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya'
> >> think? ROFLOL
>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
>
> >...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
> >concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better.
>
> "More antenna" can be accommodated
> with pre-selectors and attenuators,
> whereas less antenna can only generate wishes.
BD - Where-as... Enough -is- Enough !
-and- Nothing Else Is Required [.] ~ RHF
.
RHF
> > Joe from Kokomo wrote:
> >> On 12/19/2010 2:51 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> >>> I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often wondering why
> >>> they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya'
> >>> think? ROFLOL
>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> JS
>
> >> ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
> >> concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always better.
>
>
> > "More antenna" can be accommodated
> > with pre-selectors and attenuators,
> > whereas less antenna can only generate wishes.
>
> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate
> that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and
> cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in
> the first place.
EXACTLY ! --- Enough -is-just- Enough !
RHF
> On 12/19/2010 5:09 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
> > ...
> > building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate
> > that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and
> > cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in
> > the first place.
>
> receive signals with the shorter antenna is just incapable of, for
> starters ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
JS,
Lets see an old Hallicrafters SX-100 'Tube' Receiver
http://www.dxing.com/rx/sx100.htm
might require 150 Foot Random {Long} Wire Antenna
with a Matching Transformer, Ground and Coax Cable
feed-in-line : "To-Hear" that Target Weak Signal.
* Twice the Antenna & Half the Receiver *
While a modern Drake R8B 'Solid State' Receiver might
http://www.dxing.com/rx/r8b.htm
only require 75 Foot Random {Long} Wire Antenna
with a Matching Transformer, Ground and Coax Cable
feed-in-line : "To-Hear" that same Target Weak Signal.
* Half the Antenna & Twice the Receiver *
Matching the Antenna to the Radio : It Works !
Therefore : Enough -is-just- Enough !
-and- Nothing Else Is Required [.] ~ RHF
.
-cause- The Signals in the Aether Exist [.]
{In Their Own Relative Strength 'Potential'}
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/13f8860c6b4ab693
.
.
RHF
Krypsis,
Exactly the Sony ICF-SW7600GR 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radio is just fine as is.
It is simply 'optimized' to use the Whip Antenna
or a small 23 Foot Reel-Up Antenna that 90+%
of the 'portable AM/FM Shortwave Radio 'users'
will be using to listen to their radios regularly.
Simply giving the Customer the best Product for
their normal intended use -wrt- Being a 'portable'
AM/FM Shortwave Radio -not- a Full-Size "Table
Top" Receiver intended for fixed operation in a
Radio Shack.
Yes - There are different types of Shortwave Radio
Listeners -and- different types of Shortwave Radio
Listening - one-size-does-not-fit-all ~ RHF
.
.
hallic...@collins.net
<garrett14...@radiobanter.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Folks,
>I'm Garrett. I'm new here, so I think it'd be appropriate to say hello.
>I'm relatively new to the hobby, I recently bought my first shortwave
>receiver, a Sony ICF-SW7600GR. I'm living in Michigan currently, and
>I'm a Junior in High School.
>
Welcome to Michigan.
>So here's my questions:
>I've been using my receiver with the included whip antenna and the
>included portable wire antenna. I've been having trouble picking up
>anything at all, even the more powerful stations. Does anyone have any
>insight? Should I get an antenna? If so, what kind?
>
Enough said about that.
>Second,
>Has anyone been able to pick up Voice of Korea in the midwest? Where
>could I find a current schedule online?
>
I listened to the relayed broadcast of Radio Korea in English this
morning from 7:00-8:00 EST on 9650 kHz. It is relayed by the CBC out
of Sackville, NB and gives very good reception here in Southeast
Michigan. There is also Korean language scheduled from 9:00-10:00EST
(1400UTC) on the same frequency. It is coming in very strong as I
write this (1403 UTC). Good luck and good DX'ing.
Jim
>Thanks!
>-Garrett
dave
> On Dec 19, 5:16 pm, John Smith<assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2010 5:09 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> OK Bob...please explain why I would want to go to the trouble of
>>> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then attenuate
>>> that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would be easier and
>>> cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the rcvr in question) in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> Well, I can help with that. Others, apparently NOT you, will want to
>> receive signals with the shorter antenna is just incapable of, for
>> starters ...
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>
> JS,
>
> Lets see an old Hallicrafters SX-100 'Tube' Receiver
> http://www.dxing.com/rx/sx100.htm
> might require 150 Foot Random {Long} Wire Antenna
> with a Matching Transformer, Ground and Coax Cable
> feed-in-line : "To-Hear" that Target Weak Signal.
>
> While a modern Drake R8B 'Solid State' Receiver might
> http://www.dxing.com/rx/r8b.htm
> only require 75 Foot Random {Long} Wire Antenna
> with a Matching Transformer, Ground and Coax Cable
> feed-in-line : "To-Hear" that same Target Weak Signal.
> * Half the Antenna& Twice the Receiver *
>
a comparable sand box. Front end gain has always been relatively
effortless for tubes. It requires rather exotic solid state methods.
All that being opined, a short wire (3m) will light up both sets nicely.
John Smith
> ...
> Lets see an old Hallicrafters SX-100 'Tube' Receiver
> http://www.dxing.com/rx/sx100.htm
> might require 150 Foot Random {Long} Wire Antenna
> with a Matching Transformer, Ground and Coax Cable
> feed-in-line : "To-Hear" that Target Weak Signal.
> * Twice the Antenna & Half the Receiver *
> ...
Until you find a way to break the laws of physics and energy
conservation, a small antenna will NEVER receive as well as a larger
one. The higher the better ...
Even rewriting the facts will not change any of this ... or, even
attempting to use language to obfuscate this will be unsuccessful.
Most, including myself, wish a small antenna would perform as well as a
large one. I now live in the city and my antennas are reduced in size.
They do not perform as well as larger ones, I simply have no choice,
otherwise, I would string up a 150 footer and get more stations that is
possible now ... to anyone who has ever tested a short antenna against a
longer one, there is no debate on if the laws of physics can be broken,
or not ... they simply can't.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> If there is only a certain level signal you expect to encounter,
> then a dedicated antenna could accommodate that, but if you anticipate various
> levels of signals, even weaker ones, then you might want to be able to use the
> increased signal levels from a larger antenna for those weaker stations, only
> attenuating for the stronger ones. My point was that it would seem preferable to
> be able to snag the weakest signals out there while still being able to
> attenuate against any overload.
Well said. I think it is obvious, you "shoot" for the best case
scenario, in the end, if you are limited by space, material, cost, or
the rules and regulations of the area you live in, you live with it.
As I have said, some will want the strongest and clearest signals they
can obtain ... some will toss a length of wire out the window and accept
the results. It is all just a personal choice ...
But, in the end, the longer antenna will always out perform the shorter
... it is only important that everyone knows what is possible and be
allowed to choose what they desire ... your advise is very sound in that.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> BD - Where-as... Enough -is- Enough !
> -and- Nothing Else Is Required [.] ~ RHF
> .
Actually, between your words, I hear, "No one needs to receive better
than me. If it is good enough for me, it is good enough for you."
I have always wondered why some here call others "liars" on the type,
time and quality they receive stations at ... now I can guess the
reason(s) why this is happening ... why anyone with a 30 FT antenna even
thinks he/she is going to come close to receiving the quality or numbers
of stations a 120 FT will receive simply boggles my mind! I have to
tell you, such thinking sounds insane to me ... I leave it to others to
form their own opinions ...
Dream on ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Yes - There are different types of Shortwave Radio
> Listeners -and- different types of Shortwave Radio
> Listening - one-size-does-not-fit-all ~ RHF
> .
> .
Well, I would agree. They only need to compare a 30 FT antenna against
a 120 FT antenna and they will immediately know which they want.
Indeed, this was the point from the beginning! Glad you concur!
Just give the SW listener a choice and let him/her decide!
Regards,
JS
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
>> Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2010 2:51 AM, John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll just bet you, people with a 30' ft antenna are often
>>>> wondering why
>>>> they don't hear what people with 100+ ft antenna hear ... don't ya'
>>>> think? ROFLOL
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> JS
>>>
>>> ...and I'll just bet -you- [JS] that you are not familiar with the
>>> concept of "front end overload". More [antenna] is NOT always
>>> better.
>
> On 12/19/2010 3:14 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
>
>> "More antenna" can be accommodated
>> with pre-selectors and attenuators,
>> whereas less antenna can only generate wishes.
>
> building a longer antenna to get a stronger signal...and then
> attenuate that signal before it gets to the receiver. Seems it would
> be easier and cheaper to build a shorter (proper antenna for the
> rcvr in question) in the first place.
Simply because an attenuator, if there is overload, can be adjusted
to _just enough_ attenuation to prevent distortion and spurs. This
may still leave you with a much better signal to noise ratio than a
poor antenna.
A preselector / tuner can do the same thing, with the additional
benefit that off-frequency and out of band signals (which are often
the ones causing the overload, if there is any) can be greatly
attenuated without reducing the desired signal at all.
There are some facts that both sides of this argument are missing.
1. "Shorter" does not always mean less signal strength. If I am
trying to receive a weak signal on 10 meters, an unmatched 300-foot
Marconi is probably going to deliver a much _weaker_ signal than a
matched, resonant ground plane, a few feet high, specifically
designed for 10 meters.
2. Antenna patterns vary widely by frequency, and the patterns of
unterminated antennas generally get more and more complex as the
length of the antenna in wavelengths gets larger than 1. Moving a
longwire antenna by as much as a few degrees can easily move the
desired signal from a peak to a null of more than 20 dB. So the
longer antenna could, on any given signal, deliver vastly less _or_
more signal than a smaller dipole, depending on its orientation.
And I haven't even addressed the issue of impedance matching, which
has a huge effect on signal level, yet is seldom even addressed in
SWL circles.
Untuned random wires of any length, short or long (and that includes
dipoles used on other than their resonant frequencies), are strictly
a gamble when it comes to SWL results, unless you model them before
trying. But it's a fun gamble. I encourage the original poster to try.
With every good wish,
Kevin, WB4AIO. (currently listening to The Iveys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiblZZv9Oeg )
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
RHF
JS ?"liars"? : Did I Call You A 'Liar' ? ~ RHF
i hear what i hear -cause- i take the time
. . . to listen to the radio ~ RHF
.
John Smith
> Have you tried a World famous,,, Tiny Tenna?
> cuhulin
>
When traveling, and listening from a cruise ship, hotel room, beach,
etc., I sometimes use an active antenna.
At home, I never use one. Any amplified antenna also introduces a noise
figure in addition to atmospheric and manmade noise. Examining the spec
sheet on the devices used in the active antennas construction will tell
you the amount of noise you are introducing into the antenna system.
So, of course, at home, I use the best/highest/length possible.
It is relatively easy to find that an active antenna is NOT even in the
same league as a 120 FT antenna mounted 30 FT or more in the air.
Simple tune a weak station on the 120 FT antenna and then disconnect and
find that you can't even receive the same signal of the active antenna
(probably is there, but below the noise floor and unusable.) Again,
just a simple law of physics ... you can read any book on the subject
and find it plainly stated ... however, like everyone else, I first had
to find it out for myself, before I accepted it ... I'd just love to
toss 30 FT of wire out a second story window and get every station on
the other side of globe ... wouldn't we all?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> JS ?"liars"? : Did I Call You A 'Liar' ? ~ RHF
>
> i hear what i hear -cause- i take the time
> . . . to listen to the radio ~ RHF
> .
You can probably best answer that, yourself. Read your own words ... I
don't see you stating me, specifically. Now read my words, again, I
don't see myself claiming you called ME a liar ...
If you are having difficulty with even that, no wonder antennas are much
more difficult for you ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Probably the two words of 'language'
> that's so far been omitted are - 'capture area'!
> A bigger net will capture more fish
> even if you decide to throw most of them back.
> I think it's better to have enough catch
> to be able to throw some back
> than bemoaning an empty net.
Well, I can certainly understand where they are coming from. When
getting started in radio, I battled with small antennas from the get-go.
First off, I was 15 years old. My mother didn't want me climbing great
heights or stinging unsightly wires about the property. Luckily, I
interested my father in the hobby ... soon real antennas started happening!
One advantage I had back then, which may be lacking today, is that there
were a LOT of people interested in SW and Amateur Radio, even CB. In
visiting others stations and listening posts, it became quite apparent,
those with the longer higher antennas were receiving signals I was
totally missing ... there is much truth in the phrase, "Seeing is
believing."
Capture area is a major factor, and I did mention it earlier in a post a
few dozen back, or so ... combined with sufficient antenna, matchboxes,
baluns, filters/notch-filters, tuners, etc. one can end up with very
impressive results!
But, the guy who just wants to pull out a whip on a portable and catch
what he can is just as valid ... if it is something you want to hear and
the signal is good, it is all good. Just never hurts to know what is
possible, if you ever want to explore in that direction ...
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
the sack before midnight.Aints missin nuttin either.
cuhulin
garrett1415
Holy crap you guys O_O I've never seen so much bickering over antennas
in my life.
I'm pretty confused now. I have a small-ish budget 20-50 to spend on an
antenna, what should I get? Something small? Something large?
Although I'm rather confused, I thank you for the replies.
Also, I'd like something that isn't much of an eyesore, as I live in a
suburb.
--
garrett1415
John Smith
> John Smith wrote:
>>
>> But, the guy who just wants to pull out a whip on a portable and catch
>> what he can is just as valid ... if it is something you want to hear and
>> the signal is good, it is all good. Just never hurts to know what is
>> possible, if you ever want to explore in that direction ...
>
>> ...
I am sorry if you read my words, like tea leaves, and came to that
conclusion. However, I am NOT one to mince words, if I have something
to say, I will say it outright and the consequences be damned!
I am mostly in agreement with you. I use a portable with a whip
frequently, myself ... and the old DX-392 beside my bed simply uses a
small grundig loop ... gets the talk radio stations clear, which I find
favor with ...
But, I didn't take anything you have said to invalidate anyone at all.
I was simply giving the span and breadth of the range of listeners out
there and noting that the hardware they would need would be vastly
differing ... some will even buy a radio, use it for a week and let it
live in a closet for years.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Was great when Art Bell was host. His voice and manner were/are rare in
the world. george boorey is simply a limp wristed wimp who has all the
personality of an HIV virus. He has a real skill in attracting every
lunatic, witch, warlock, wannabe vampire, wannabe alien abductee,
escaped nut cases, etc. to his show ... only if the guest is valid will
I tune in, these days ... or, on that odd occasion when Art Bell is
guest host ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Build one, this page has some elementary instructions ...
http://www.dwave.net/~twomules/antenna.html
You don't have to do everything at once. A 30-70 ft antenna will get
you started receiving enough signals. When you are comfortable and
enjoying the fact you can make your own, expand and improve ... at
least, that is how I did it.
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
model/portable Goodwill store radios,,, a bunch of years ago, I
connected an old raggity 100 feet long extension line/cord to that
radio.It did sort of help, a little bit anyway.
cuhulin
RHF
wrote:
Buy this and 'enjoy'
Par Electronics EF-SWL End-Fed Dipole Antenna
http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/2205.html
.
John Smith
> ...
> Buy this and 'enjoy'
> Par Electronics EF-SWL End-Fed Dipole Antenna
> http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/2205.html
> .
Actually, that is not a bad starting point. Will allow a newbie to get
the feel, have some success and decide if it is a hobby he would like to
pursue and get deeper into!
But, rather pricey for a few feet of wire ...
Regards,
JS
arthr...@webtv.net
...if I threw a 30ft wire out my second floor window the result will
be a lousy ground connection...
arthr...@webtv.net
wrote:
If you have ANY copper wire it will cost nothing.
John Smith
> ...
> ...if I threw a 30ft wire out my second floor window the result will
> be a lousy ground connection...
LOL! Well, yeah!
Dude! You toss it OVER, or ONTO the roof! lol
Regards,
JS
cuh...@webtv.net
Barb Wire Fence Antenna
You have an old Barb Wire Fence handy?
Lunar Eclipse tonight at about 12:36 AM.I reckon doggy and I might check
it out.
cuhulin
John Smith
Old phone line? Old twin lead? Old coax? Old extension cord you can
strip the wiring out of? Does the local hard ware store sell cheap
aluminum or copper coated steel electric fence wire? Is there a local
demolition company, to you, where you can buy some old house wiring
which has been ripped out? Etc., etc.
You can make cheap insulators out of PVC pipe, just cut into a couple 6
inch sections, drill a hole though the ends and use as insulators for
you antenna ...
Yep, I am with you, cheap is good! :-)
Regards,
JS
garrett1415
Well, my dad said he'd help me put an antenna on the roof. So what would
you guys recommend for a vertical antenna? Can my radio handle it? I
don't have a BNC plug on my portable.
--
garrett1415
cuh...@webtv.net
insulation was cracked and peeling off in a bunch of places.
I have a book here about barb wire collecting.Some of that old antique
barb wire is worth a lot of money.
cuhulin
arthr...@webtv.net
wrote:
Try a small mono jack (don't force it) to connect with the socket
labeled AM EXT ANT . It is next to the telescoping antenna. That is
the input,as far as I know.
RHF
wrote:
Better a simple Insulated Wire out the Window
up-to the House Eave and then out-to a Tree Limb
or Fence.
* As long as it is at least 10+ Foot off-the-ground
so that it is not a Head catching hazard.
End it at the Radio with one of these
Portable Wire Antenna [PWA]
http://www.reocities.com/n2uhc/portablewire.html
-or- An Insulated Wire out the Window up-to the
House Eave; then Over-the-Roof; to the Eave* on
the other-side of the House.
-or-or- An Insulated Wire out the Window up-to
the House Eave*; and then along the Eaves for
20~40 Feet.
* Use these to Secure the Insulated Wire at/to the
Eaves : Coax Cable Standoff Screw Type Antenna
Lead Support
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2104003
http://www.summitsource.com/popup_image.php?pID=7269&image=0
-wrt- Insulated 'Antenna' Wire
http://www.dxengineering.com/products.asp?ID=159
-or- Any Insulated Multi-Stranded AWG 14~20 Copper
Wire 50~75~100 Foot long.
hope this helps - iane ~ RHF
.
.
arthr...@webtv.net
> John Smith wrote:
> talk radio and was able to finesse such an empire out of it, that I think Noory
> is simply trying to outdo or one up the tradition, even if he routinely goes
> overboard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He doesn't go overboard. He goes into the unknown by bringing out
impostors, madman, etc. Richard Hoagland is an exception- at least he
makes sense,occassionally...