You mentioned that in your location the smaller Wellbrook ALA 1530 gave
a lower
S-meter reading, but was clearer then your Wellbrook K9AY loop. Is it
posible
the K9AY produces enough RF to cause your receiver to, so to speak,
"fold".

I have found that too much RF, even well removed from the tuned
frequency,
can cause many receivers to act "weird". By wierd I am referring to non
obvious distortion that degrades intelligibility. Me experiments over
the last
~14 months showed me that ANYTHING that degrades the signal to noise
will impair intelligibility.

I found that every receiver I tested, the boring list at the end,
experienced
degraded intelligibility with a long enough wire antenna. Long enough
might
be 50' with the DX398, to 1000' with the R390/R392.

Receivers used:
R2000, R1000, PRC1000,DX398, R390, R392, AOR7030+, R8B and several
ham transceivers with general coverage receivers.

If you have a RF attentuator, in a pinch a the Rat Shack TV adjustable
pad
can be used, could you try an experiment? The next time you encounter a
situation where the ALA 1530 gives better, as in increased
intelligibility, place
the attenuator/pad inline and see if reducing the incoming RF voltage
helps.

Several things I read got me to thinking about the effect of broad band
"noise"
and the effect it could have on cross modulation/IMD/IP2/IP3 at the
first mixer,
before great selectivity is present. IF, please note the IF, the
first mixer
adds unwanted RF crap from unwanted, overly strong, RF "noise", then
intelligibility
will almost certainly suffer.

"Noise" in this context means every RF signal other then the one you
want.

Longer, as in the length of an antenna, is not always better.

Terry

Hi Terry,

I agree with what you are saying.

I do not think that is the case for me. I have used the k9AY & 1530 for
several years & with various receivers. 756PRO, RX340, AR7030 & many
more.

Good example. At 17:00 utc there is a pirate on 6.925 in am mode not
USB. It is not real strong here with some fading on the signal. Decent
copy on the K9AY but better copy on the 1530 as less noise on the
signal but it is 1-2 sunits lower on the JRC NRD545 receiver I am using
right now.

73 Ken








wrote:
You mentioned that in your location the smaller Wellbrook ALA 1530 gave
a lower
S-meter reading, but was clearer then your Wellbrook K9AY loop. Is it
posible
the K9AY produces enough RF to cause your receiver to, so to speak,
"fold".

I have found that too much RF, even well removed from the tuned
frequency,
can cause many receivers to act "weird". By wierd I am referring to non
obvious distortion that degrades intelligibility. Me experiments over
the last
~14 months showed me that ANYTHING that degrades the signal to noise
will impair intelligibility.

I found that every receiver I tested, the boring list at the end,
experienced
degraded intelligibility with a long enough wire antenna. Long enough
might
be 50' with the DX398, to 1000' with the R390/R392.

Receivers used:
R2000, R1000, PRC1000,DX398, R390, R392, AOR7030+, R8B and several
ham transceivers with general coverage receivers.

If you have a RF attentuator, in a pinch a the Rat Shack TV adjustable
pad
can be used, could you try an experiment? The next time you encounter a
situation where the ALA 1530 gives better, as in increased
intelligibility, place
the attenuator/pad inline and see if reducing the incoming RF voltage
helps.

Several things I read got me to thinking about the effect of broad band
"noise"
and the effect it could have on cross modulation/IMD/IP2/IP3 at the
first mixer,
before great selectivity is present. IF, please note the IF, the
first mixer
adds unwanted RF crap from unwanted, overly strong, RF "noise", then
intelligibility
will almost certainly suffer.

"Noise" in this context means every RF signal other then the one you
want.

Longer, as in the length of an antenna, is not always better.

Terry

Ken Wilson wrote:
Hi Terry,

I agree with what you are saying.

I do not think that is the case for me. I have used the k9AY & 1530 for
several years & with various receivers. 756PRO, RX340, AR7030 & many
more.

Good example. At 17:00 utc there is a pirate on 6.925 in am mode not
USB. It is not real strong here with some fading on the signal. Decent
copy on the K9AY but better copy on the 1530 as less noise on the
signal but it is 1-2 sunits lower on the JRC NRD545 receiver I am using
right now.

73 Ken

Well it was a thought.

I am kind of bummed out.

The WX was forecast to be raining this morning with broken clouds this
afternoon. It has been raining, to be vulgar but accurate, like a cow
on a
rock. I can'w work outside becuase of the rain. And I can't haul the
new
radio desk we made at a friends wood shop because I only have access
to a open pick up.

Bummer!

I did manage to errect the AD370 during a lull and for giggles and
grins
I errected the active dipole that came with a circa 1986 OEM-10 WWV
"precission clock/time receiver" that I was given because it was one of
the few really Y2K non-compliant devices I have seen. The ROM doesn't
support years beyond 1999. Not a problem for me as I almost always
know what year it is! I have one EW and the other NS. So the evening
isn't a complete bust.

However I am reduced to operating from the kitchen table.

At least we don't have any lightning near by.

Terry

Well that time should be 21:00 utc not 17:00utc

Anyway the audio went away around 21:03. Now all I have is a carrier
with no audio??

Maybe they are having problems.

Where are you located Terry? I am in Georgetown, KY.

Ken


Ken Wilson wrote:
Hi Terry,

I agree with what you are saying.

I do not think that is the case for me. I have used the k9AY & 1530 for
several years & with various receivers. 756PRO, RX340, AR7030 & many
more.

Good example. At 17:00 utc there is a pirate on 6.925 in am mode not
USB. It is not real strong here with some fading on the signal. Decent
copy on the K9AY but better copy on the 1530 as less noise on the
signal but it is 1-2 sunits lower on the JRC NRD545 receiver I am using
right now.

73 Ken








wrote:
You mentioned that in your location the smaller Wellbrook ALA 1530 gave
a lower
S-meter reading, but was clearer then your Wellbrook K9AY loop. Is it
posible
the K9AY produces enough RF to cause your receiver to, so to speak,
"fold".

I have found that too much RF, even well removed from the tuned
frequency,
can cause many receivers to act "weird". By wierd I am referring to non
obvious distortion that degrades intelligibility. Me experiments over
the last
~14 months showed me that ANYTHING that degrades the signal to noise
will impair intelligibility.

I found that every receiver I tested, the boring list at the end,
experienced
degraded intelligibility with a long enough wire antenna. Long enough
might
be 50' with the DX398, to 1000' with the R390/R392.

Receivers used:
R2000, R1000, PRC1000,DX398, R390, R392, AOR7030+, R8B and several
ham transceivers with general coverage receivers.

If you have a RF attentuator, in a pinch a the Rat Shack TV adjustable
pad
can be used, could you try an experiment? The next time you encounter a
situation where the ALA 1530 gives better, as in increased
intelligibility, place
the attenuator/pad inline and see if reducing the incoming RF voltage
helps.

Several things I read got me to thinking about the effect of broad band
"noise"
and the effect it could have on cross modulation/IMD/IP2/IP3 at the
first mixer,
before great selectivity is present. IF, please note the IF, the
first mixer
adds unwanted RF crap from unwanted, overly strong, RF "noise", then
intelligibility
will almost certainly suffer.

"Noise" in this context means every RF signal other then the one you
want.

Longer, as in the length of an antenna, is not always better.

Terry

The audio is back on at 21:27.

Wow this has to be the worst broadcast I have ever heard. Something
about James Brown????

All they say is yeah yeah yeah.

Horrible.

Oh well mostly just QRN anyway here this afternoon.

Ken

Ken Wilson wrote:
Well that time should be 21:00 utc not 17:00utc

Anyway the audio went away around 21:03. Now all I have is a carrier
with no audio??

Maybe they are having problems.

Where are you located Terry? I am in Georgetown, KY.

Ken


Ken Wilson wrote:
Hi Terry,

I agree with what you are saying.

I do not think that is the case for me. I have used the k9AY & 1530 for
several years & with various receivers. 756PRO, RX340, AR7030 & many
more.

Good example. At 17:00 utc there is a pirate on 6.925 in am mode not
USB. It is not real strong here with some fading on the signal. Decent
copy on the K9AY but better copy on the 1530 as less noise on the
signal but it is 1-2 sunits lower on the JRC NRD545 receiver I am using
right now.

73 Ken








wrote:
You mentioned that in your location the smaller Wellbrook ALA 1530 gave
a lower
S-meter reading, but was clearer then your Wellbrook K9AY loop. Is it
posible
the K9AY produces enough RF to cause your receiver to, so to speak,
"fold".

I have found that too much RF, even well removed from the tuned
frequency,
can cause many receivers to act "weird". By wierd I am referring to non
obvious distortion that degrades intelligibility. Me experiments over
the last
~14 months showed me that ANYTHING that degrades the signal to noise
will impair intelligibility.

I found that every receiver I tested, the boring list at the end,
experienced
degraded intelligibility with a long enough wire antenna. Long enough
might
be 50' with the DX398, to 1000' with the R390/R392.

Receivers used:
R2000, R1000, PRC1000,DX398, R390, R392, AOR7030+, R8B and several
ham transceivers with general coverage receivers.

If you have a RF attentuator, in a pinch a the Rat Shack TV adjustable
pad
can be used, could you try an experiment? The next time you encounter a
situation where the ALA 1530 gives better, as in increased
intelligibility, place
the attenuator/pad inline and see if reducing the incoming RF voltage
helps.

Several things I read got me to thinking about the effect of broad band
"noise"
and the effect it could have on cross modulation/IMD/IP2/IP3 at the
first mixer,
before great selectivity is present. IF, please note the IF, the
first mixer
adds unwanted RF crap from unwanted, overly strong, RF "noise", then
intelligibility
will almost certainly suffer.

"Noise" in this context means every RF signal other then the one you
want.

Longer, as in the length of an antenna, is not always better.

Terry

Ken Wilson wrote:
Well that time should be 21:00 utc not 17:00utc

Anyway the audio went away around 21:03. Now all I have is a carrier
with no audio??

Maybe they are having problems.

Where are you located Terry? I am in Georgetown, KY.

Ken


About 8 miles south of Lexington.

Man you are too close to Radio Mart up the road in Sadieville!

There is a local SWL group,
"Bluegrass DaVinci Fellowship
Central Kentucky Group of Shortwave Enthusiasts
http://www.bluegrassdavinci.com/ "

But I am not much a group person.

Terry

In article . com,
wrote:

You mentioned that in your location the smaller Wellbrook ALA 1530
gave a lower S-meter reading, but was clearer then your Wellbrook
K9AY loop. Is it posible the K9AY produces enough RF to cause your
receiver to, so to speak, "fold".

I have found that too much RF, even well removed from the tuned
frequency, can cause many receivers to act "weird". By wierd I am
referring to non obvious distortion that degrades intelligibility.
Me experiments over the last ~14 months showed me that ANYTHING
that degrades the signal to noise will impair intelligibility.

I found that every receiver I tested, the boring list at the end,
experienced degraded intelligibility with a long enough wire antenna.
Long enough might be 50' with the DX398, to 1000' with the R390/R392.

Receivers used: R2000, R1000, PRC1000,DX398, R390, R392, AOR7030+,
R8B and several ham transceivers with general coverage receivers.

If you have a RF attentuator, in a pinch a the Rat Shack TV
adjustable pad can be used, could you try an experiment? The next
time you encounter a situation where the ALA 1530 gives better, as in
increased intelligibility, place the attenuator/pad inline and see if
reducing the incoming RF voltage helps.

Several things I read got me to thinking about the effect of broad
band "noise" and the effect it could have on cross
modulation/IMD/IP2/IP3 at the first mixer, before great selectivity
is present. IF, please note the IF, the first mixer adds unwanted
RF crap from unwanted, overly strong, RF "noise", then
intelligibility will almost certainly suffer.

"Noise" in this context means every RF signal other then the one you
want.

Longer, as in the length of an antenna, is not always better.

You are on a good line of thought alluding to IP2 and IP3 being worse at
higher signal levels since in a power series equation the terms that
dictate the power of IMD products are higher order terms and so they
increase at a faster rate than the signals that generate them.

Generally you lower power levels so that the IMD products are just above
the noise floor of the spectrum analyzer for best results. All signals
must be in the DUTs linear range for an IMD measurement to be valid.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California