On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben om
uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:46:03 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

Één of andere goede vertaling, slecht wat. Wat kwamen uit zeer goed
zelfs daarna twee vertalingen.

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:13:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Ik heb een willekeurig stuk vertaald. Dit kwam eruit en het is gewoon
onleesbaar.

Mijn fout toen. De kortere zinnen zijn nodig.

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Richard Clark op mijn schermpje
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

Ik zal eens van een bakkebaard van een kat en wat loodglans een diode
maken hi.

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Gert-Jan Dam
HF knutselhoekje: http://www.pg0g.net
De nieuwsgroepronde Homepage: http://www.nieuwsgroepronde.tk
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;
but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

iane ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 28 Jun 2004 17:19:51 -0700, (RHF)
wrote:

RC,

In the same location using the same Antenna:

100uV of background noise being re-radiated by a Transmitting
Antenna that is being powered at 50W or 100W is simply not an
issue for the Amateur/HAM.

Hello iane,

The construction of this "argument" is called a strawman. Who is to
say it "is simply not an issue?" Further, who is to say it is?
Amateur radios, as last I noted, contain receivers too and suffer
every much any debility as a SWL set. Simply put, there is no
separation to argue.

- Background Noise is NOT an Issue when thinking of Transmitting
Antennas that are Radiating Power in the Tens and Hundreds of Watts.
- For the HAM Signal-to-Noise is NOT a Transmission Antenna Parameter.

Then why would you presume this is a fault in discussion here in an
antenna group? True this is cross-posted, but again, we have every
concern with reception that a SWLer would also have. Again, there is
no separation of issues to argue.

100uV of background noise being received by a Receiving Antenna
that is seeking a 25uV Signal is unacceptable for a SWLer.

Again, Amateur radio is just as concerned and seeks every remedy where
ever it may be found. To continue:

- Background Noise IS an Issue when thinking of Receiving Antennas
that are 'acquiring' Radiated Power in the Milliwatts or micro-watts.
- For the SWLer Signal-to-Noise IS a key Receiving Antenna Parameter.

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas. In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency. This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency. The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:29:31 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Sorry, _This_ is a Dutch newsgroup!

Of course it is: nl.radio.amateur
This is an amateur antenna discussion. This discussion originated
from this group (nl.radio.amateur). If this is a mistake, take it up
with the original poster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 29 Jun 2004 11:30:01 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC (KB7QHC),

Spoken (written) like a True Amateur, and precicly why most SWLs
ignore what is written in reply to SWL 'type' Antennas questions
by HAMs.

Strange logic to offer that a listener comes here to post a query they
will ignore in anticipation. Rather self serving argument isn't it?

Most SWLs work to get the best signal (cleanest signal and lowest
noise) they can to be able to listen to what they what to hear.

There is nothing in this statement that distinguishes amateur from
listener. Further, it contains absolutely no technical material to
support any sense of this exclusivity of concern. To respond in kind,
you don't even rise to amateur status.

The HAM would hardly ever consider a 'random' wire Antenna;

Now this is a statement that is clearly in error. The archives will
attest to this.

but to the SWL'er the "Random" Wire Antenna 'concept' is a
natural to fill their available space. Power handling, gain
and antenna design characteristics are the focus of the HAM.

As they are no more or less for a listener. If you find some other
motivation, it is strictly your own prejudice.

As far as the AM/MW Loop Antenna's are concerned. For the AM/MW
DX'er these Antenna's perform the best for their size and the
available space that the average Broadcast Listener (BCL) has
for these Medium Wave Band. The SWL'er wants to hear any Radio
Station out there from any direction.

Perhaps you should attend this board more often to learn the
fundamentals. There is no impediment to hearing any Radio Station out
there from any direction with simple verticals. SW sets come with
them you know.

The 'focus' of the SWL'er is simpy different then the Amateur;
and the majority of SWL'ers are Program Listeners who seldom
listen to the HAM Bands.

So why are you posting to an amateur group? Why an antenna group?
You would be better served through your self-imposed limitations by
staying out of the fast lane.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, WPE0EPH

p.s. if the WPE0EPH is unknown to you, it denotes my having been a
Shortwave listener for 40 years and registered with the Popular
Electronics DX club (as well as a sack full of others from around the
world).

Richard Clark beweerde :
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:57 +0200, Gert-Jan Dam PG0G
wrote:

Op dinsdag 29-6-2004 krabbelde Mark1 op mijn schermpje
'zou u slechts een van de loodglanskristal en kat bakkebaard nodig hebben
om uw hoofdtelefoon aan te drijven'

Ja haha. Lachen zo'n vertaal programma

rofl
Mark

Hi OM,

het van het kattenbakkebaard en loodglans kristal is de oude
componenten van de tijddetector. De bakkebaard van de kat is fijne
draad. Het kristal van het loodglans is semiconducting mineraal (waar
de draad raakt en contact met een oxyde opneemt). De twee componenten
maken een diode.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Translation, : it from it cat-sideburn and leadshine cristal is the old
components of the timedetector. The sideburn of the cat is fine thread.

And so on.
So pse remove this group from future postings.

Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks
up radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also
troublesome, particularly common mode on the transmission line. This
tends to be the way that locally generated noise from household gadgets
gets into an antenna system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in
common mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your
transceiver, rides out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples
back through differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very
efficient coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still
get 10 nW to the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30
MHz, it's still 10 uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a
very serious quantity of noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss
means it only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to
interfere with its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences*
are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its
not generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue.
Gain is cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient
*steerable* MW antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones
often overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to
spend the dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's
good engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my
inverted-L's, I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of
effective bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams,
but is very useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility
of a modern receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible
consequence at HF and below if your receiver has a decent noise figure.
I've never seen mention of this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham
literature, but it's not hard to find in the professional literature.
For details of a specific calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd

pse remove the nl newsgroup from this discussion.


John Doty schreef op 29-6-04 :
Richard Clark wrote:

Antennas have no capacity to reduce Signal to Noise ratios except by
virtue of narrowing lobes to eliminate noise by placing it in a null
(if that is in fact a viable option either in the sense of having a
null, or having a null to a noise source that is not on the same
meridian as the signal of interest).

Not true. You are making the assumption that that the antenna only picks up
radiated modes. Non-radiated electromagnetic modes are also troublesome,
particularly common mode on the transmission line. This tends to be the way
that locally generated noise from household gadgets gets into an antenna
system.

Consider a lamp dimmer that generates 10 mW of RFI, which rides out in common
mode on the mains, finds its way to the power cord of your transceiver, rides
out on the feedline to the antenna, and then couples back through
differential mode to your receiver input. That's not a very efficient
coupling path, so suppose it has a loss of 60 dB. You'll still get 10 nW to
the receiver. This is a lot: even if it's spread over 30 MHz, it's still 10
uV in a 6 kHz channel. That's S6 on my Drake R-8, a very serious quantity of
noise.

On the other hand, if your transmitter puts out 1 kW, 60 dB of loss means it
only delivers 1 mW of RF to the dimmer, an amount unlikely to interfere with
its operation. Reciprocity does not mean *consequences* are symmetrical.

To this point, you have not offered any particularly receive dominated
issue that is not already a heavily trafficked topic with transmission
antennas.

A deep, steerable null can be extremely useful for reception, but its not
generally useful for transmission.

In fact, the presumption there are unique reception
antennas that are more suitable than their transmission cousins is
simply the artifice of my aforementioned advantage of the RF Gain
control. It has been long established (through the simple act of
purchase power) that receivers have far more gain available than
needed except for the worst of antenna designs (and that has to be an
exceptionally vile design).

Such examples of small loops used for MF are proof positive how poor
an antenna can be, and the RF gain knob resurrecting its pitiful
efficiency.

But for MWDX reception, efficiency simply isn't an important virtue. Gain is
cheap. What matters is the steerable nulls. An efficient *steerable* MW
antenna is enormous and expensive.

This does NOT demonstrate some illusion of superior
receive antenna design; rather it is more smoke and mirrors as an
argument. Inverting the argument, if you had a full sized antenna for
that band, you would only need a galena crystal and cat whisker to
power your hi-Z headset. For DX you would only need a $5 AF
amplifier. The smaller antenna clearly needs more dollars expended to
offset the debilities of the poorer efficiency.

Sensitivity is the cheapest, easiest virtue to put into a receiver.
Essentially all modern receivers have plenty. Indeed, the cheap ones often
overload when presented with an efficient antenna: you have to spend the
dollars to be able to handle the big signals!

Speaking of strawmen, have you ever actually tried DXing with a crystal
radio?

The specious argument
is tailored for the technically effete who would rather push a credit
card across the display counter than build their own cheap solution.
Take heart that this not simply a cheap shot, there are as many Hams
who don't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up either.

I love designing and building antennas: applied physics is fun. But it's good
engineering to go with the strengths of your technology. For my inverted-L's,
I spend a little efficiency (4 dB or so) to get octaves of effective
bandwidth, something that is perhaps of little use to hams, but is very
useful to an SWL in conjunction with the frequency agility of a modern
receiver. 4 dB of efficiency loss is of negligible consequence at HF and
below if your receiver has a decent noise figure. I've never seen mention of
this efficiency/bandwidth tradeoff in the ham literature, but it's not hard
to find in the professional literature. For details of a specific
calculation, see:

http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html

-jpd