The gain of the 15 foot noise reducing vertical is about -15 dB
reference:
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...%20rev%202.pdf

In a brief review of the article by the name found in the Subject
line, I came across this bare quote offered above. It contains not
one, but two unsupported claims that seem to be commonly encountered
in the Short Wave Listening community.

The first that is more easily supported or denied is the gain claim of
-15 dB. Where does this loss come from? Without any substantiation
beyond the inference of comparison to "active antennas," it seems to
be lost to indirect references in other writings. However arrived at,
this claim is suspicious in the extreme - unless it is a vague and
offhand substitution for antenna system gain which goes to the heart
of the matter of a poor ground system. If so (the loss is found in
the absence of an adequate counterpoise), that is indeed low hanging
fruit that has been left rotting on the limb.

As for the noise reducing claim, this, too, appears to arrive through
indirection or muddied with discussion of active systems. I can only
surmise that the lowered noise was the noise of the added circuitry of
the active antennas. If you discard the amps, I suppose you can claim
you've improved the noise which brings us to the Gordian knot of the
low gain needing those amplifiers - most curious writing.

At least one person has claimed that noise reducing antennas are
noisy. But when I quizzed him about his implementation,
it turned out that he had not implemented the antenna correctly.
If you do not follow the instructions,
then you may end up with a noise increasing antenna like he did.

Good reporting would have described the defect so that the solution
could be observed as rational rather than prescribed.

much to my amazement, that long coax (50 feet) lead
often degrades 2nd order intercepts of active
whip antennas by 20 dB or more and degrades
3rd order intercepts of active whip antennas by up to
10 dB, depending on the type of active whip antenna.

It would appear that "depending on the type of" antenna begs the
question why coax is the culprit. I can see how this kind of writing
spawns a new superstition of the superiority of twin lead.

More could be said about Common Mode suppression (which the designs on
this page do NOT entirely address).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:


The gain of the 15 foot noise reducing vertical is about -15 dB
reference:
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...ntennas%20For%
20MW,%20LW,%20And%20SW%20rev%202.pdf

In a brief review of the article by the name found in the Subject
line, I came across this bare quote offered above. It contains not
one, but two unsupported claims that seem to be commonly encountered
in the Short Wave Listening community.

The first that is more easily supported or denied is the gain claim of
-15 dB. Where does this loss come from? Without any substantiation
beyond the inference of comparison to "active antennas," it seems to
be lost to indirect references in other writings. However arrived at,
this claim is suspicious in the extreme - unless it is a vague and
offhand substitution for antenna system gain which goes to the heart
of the matter of a poor ground system. If so (the loss is found in
the absence of an adequate counterpoise), that is indeed low hanging
fruit that has been left rotting on the limb.

As for the noise reducing claim, this, too, appears to arrive through
indirection or muddied with discussion of active systems. I can only
surmise that the lowered noise was the noise of the added circuitry of
the active antennas. If you discard the amps, I suppose you can claim
you've improved the noise which brings us to the Gordian knot of the
low gain needing those amplifiers - most curious writing.

At least one person has claimed that noise reducing antennas are
noisy. But when I quizzed him about his implementation,
it turned out that he had not implemented the antenna correctly.
If you do not follow the instructions,
then you may end up with a noise increasing antenna like he did.

Good reporting would have described the defect so that the solution
could be observed as rational rather than prescribed.

much to my amazement, that long coax (50 feet) lead
often degrades 2nd order intercepts of active
whip antennas by 20 dB or more and degrades
3rd order intercepts of active whip antennas by up to
10 dB, depending on the type of active whip antenna.

It would appear that "depending on the type of" antenna begs the
question why coax is the culprit. I can see how this kind of writing
spawns a new superstition of the superiority of twin lead.

More could be said about Common Mode suppression (which the designs on
this page do NOT entirely address).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


I don't know enough to query actual figures there, but I see the scheme as
simple worth a try even without the amps. I've seen the term 'noise reducing'
questioned, and I think rightly, but if it's just relative, if he has found
the scheme to be less noisy than other schemes, he might just be using the
term to indicate that. I do think the writing leaves gaps that should be
filled, but again I figured that building it was easy to try. And I can
always ask him, but I won't do that without setting up enough of it to test
what I learn. Similarly I don't know any reason to assume the twin line is
superior to coax. My provisional assumption is that its lack of direct
contact with anything means that it probably isn't any worse. If it was, I
think he'd have discovered that so obviously that he wouldn't be sticking his
neck out like this.

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:37:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

I see the scheme as simple worth a try

There are a world of such schemes, and very little time in the span of
our short visit to this vale of tears.

First principles always satisfy and should be given primacy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:37:42 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
wrote:

I see the scheme as simple worth a try

There are a world of such schemes, and very little time in the span of
our short visit to this vale of tears.

First principles always satisfy and should be given primacy.


My aim is to find something in a practical situation that demands compromise.
Even if I learn all the principles I can't expect to apply an ideal, so I'm
looking for schemes that might save time in finding something that works for
me. They can't all be misses. At least this one consists of parts I can
easily reuse.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...

The gain of the 15 foot noise reducing vertical is about -15 dB
reference:
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...%20rev%202.pdf

In a brief review of the article by the name found in the Subject
line, I came across this bare quote offered above. It contains not
one, but two unsupported claims that seem to be commonly encountered
in the Short Wave Listening community.

The first that is more easily supported or denied is the gain claim of
-15 dB. Where does this loss come from? Without any substantiation
beyond the inference of comparison to "active antennas," it seems to
be lost to indirect references in other writings. However arrived at,
this claim is suspicious in the extreme - unless it is a vague and
offhand substitution for antenna system gain which goes to the heart
of the matter of a poor ground system. If so (the loss is found in
the absence of an adequate counterpoise), that is indeed low hanging
fruit that has been left rotting on the limb.

As for the noise reducing claim, this, too, appears to arrive through
indirection or muddied with discussion of active systems. I can only
surmise that the lowered noise was the noise of the added circuitry of
the active antennas. If you discard the amps, I suppose you can claim
you've improved the noise which brings us to the Gordian knot of the
low gain needing those amplifiers - most curious writing.

At least one person has claimed that noise reducing antennas are
noisy. But when I quizzed him about his implementation,
it turned out that he had not implemented the antenna correctly.
If you do not follow the instructions,
then you may end up with a noise increasing antenna like he did.

Good reporting would have described the defect so that the solution
could be observed as rational rather than prescribed.

much to my amazement, that long coax (50 feet) lead
often degrades 2nd order intercepts of active
whip antennas by 20 dB or more and degrades
3rd order intercepts of active whip antennas by up to
10 dB, depending on the type of active whip antenna.

It would appear that "depending on the type of" antenna begs the
question why coax is the culprit. I can see how this kind of writing
spawns a new superstition of the superiority of twin lead.

More could be said about Common Mode suppression (which the designs on
this page do NOT entirely address).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

So Richard, you seem to make vailed reports that something may be wrong
with someones ideas.
Why don't you make your own corrections with support and entirely address
all your ideas.
I figured with all the noise you put on the groups I would be able to find
a webpage showing all
the research you have done on antennas, amplifiers and receivers. I didn't
find your webpage, could
you post it so we can learn from all your properly supported research.
Thanks, Mike

amdx wrote:

So Richard, you seem to make vailed reports that something may be wrong
with someones ideas.
Why don't you make your own corrections with support and entirely address
all your ideas.
I figured with all the noise you put on the groups I would be able to find
a webpage showing all
the research you have done on antennas, amplifiers and receivers. I didn't
find your webpage, could
you post it so we can learn from all your properly supported research.


Hoo boy, Mike, what you are asking for is a whole lot of research, not
done by Richard, but done by some of the folks whose shoulders we stand
on. Those are topics we all have access to.

This isn't a courtroom where people are asked the color of the sky, then
asked if they have the meteorlogical or art degree at the pHD level,
lest their answer be discarded. Get Terman, Get Kraus. Get Balanis, Get
Best, If those are too rich for your blood,ARRL has some good antenna
books, which are are more practical.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
amdx wrote:

So Richard, you seem to make vailed reports that something may be wrong
with someones ideas.
Why don't you make your own corrections with support and entirely address
all your ideas.
I figured with all the noise you put on the groups I would be able to
find a webpage showing all
the research you have done on antennas, amplifiers and receivers. I
didn't find your webpage, could
you post it so we can learn from all your properly supported research.


Hoo boy, Mike, what you are asking for is a whole lot of research, not
done by Richard, but done by some of the folks whose shoulders we stand
on. Those are topics we all have access to.

This isn't a courtroom where people are asked the color of the sky, then
asked if they have the meteorlogical or art degree at the pHD level, lest
their answer be discarded. Get Terman, Get Kraus. Get Balanis, Get Best,
If those are too rich for your blood,ARRL has some good antenna books,
which are are more practical. Mike

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

My point is Richard constantly complains about others work, but I don't
see he has done any. I specifically was talking about anything he questions,
he
should support his rebuke and entirely address all aspects of the article.
He might know his ****, but all he does is complain, without support.
Mike
He

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:37:53 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

So Richard, you seem to make vailed reports that something may be wrong
with someones ideas.

I thought my comments were quite un-veiled. Are you suggesting I
boost the rhetorical afterburners?

Why don't you make your own corrections with support and entirely address
all your ideas.

I'm sure many would offer you that is exactly what you are responding
to.

I figured with all the noise you put on the groups I would be able to find
a webpage showing all
the research you have done on antennas, amplifiers and receivers. I didn't
find your webpage, could
you post it so we can learn from all your properly supported research.
Thanks, Mike

Hi Mike,

I should first help you with your search skills in finding my more
than 300 pages of antenna design for fractals alone. However, I am
not terribly concerned that they seem to be unavailable to the casual
search. Fractal design is a topic that has come and gone with no
apparent value discovered by Hams or Professionals as this field is
more a marketing issue. So, in that sense, your failure to stumble
across this mass of data comes at no particular loss - except for my
effort at that time. I sure didn't do it to bask in the glow of
appreciation.

As for more general antenna topics and your desire for a compendium
chronicling them - same advice: search skills in google for this group
will lead to more than 15000 offerings. I will leave it my
biographers to index them. ;-)

Going more broadly into technology, my career has spanned many, many
industries: from designing the flight recorders for the 747/757/767 to
metrology (most engineers have to look this up), to NIH research, to
pulp and paper chemistry, to A.I., to Web applications, to patents in
photonics, and on and on and on. I don't suppose you tried googling
the patent office did you? There should have been at least 5 hits
there.

Yes, this is beginning to sound like a drone. Art easily dismisses it
all when he crows about my only degree being in English. Would you
like to read one of my plays?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:37:53 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Yes, this is beginning to sound like a drone. Art easily dismisses it
all when he crows about my only degree being in English. Would you
like to read one of my plays?

I've been wanting to ask you Richard - are you a member of the American
Association of English Majors?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:05:03 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:37:53 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Yes, this is beginning to sound like a drone. Art easily dismisses it
all when he crows about my only degree being in English. Would you
like to read one of my plays?

I've been wanting to ask you Richard - are you a member of the American
Association of English Majors?

Hi Mike,

Never heard of them. No, my affiliations are more with the UW Foster
School of Business and with various Science groups as a competition
judge and mentor.

None of my proteges are interested in my plays either (but they all
perk up when I mention the "black box").

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC