"...It was Denzil Wraight, in fact, who rediscovered Strafford's work
on noise
reducing antennas,..."

After reading the above statement I don't see where you and Denzil have
created something that could be plagarized. You and Denzil did what a
lot of others have done in the world of amateur radio, and that is to
use, combine and possibly update the work of others.

It is great that you have continued the research on noise reducing
antennas, but by your own words you cannot claim ownership. This
topic has been researched and rehashed for decades. Since Strafford
published in 1937 and is probably long gone from this world, his
descendants should be the ones to raise a complaint. But then again
maybe Strafford used the work of someone else...what do you think.

I'm not complaining, or have any problems with your article. I also
didn't read it before writing the post, although I think I have read it
some time in the past.
The reason I bring it up, is some seem to get the idea that the
antennas themselves are
"quieter". As far as local noise, and decoupling, I don't consider
adding
decoupling to an antenna, as making it "low noise", even though that
may be an
end result. I just consider that as allowing the antenna to work
properly, without the feedline becoming part
of the antenna. All my antennas are decoupled, and I consider *none* of
them
as being "low noise" antennas. I have no interest in writing articles
per say. I "write"
up my approaches to this, right here on usenet. As far as "incomplete"
antennas, I don't
spend much time thinking about them, as I don't use them. I mean, if
you look at the title,
"Noise reducing antennas", it's very misleading to some. Or could be.
There is no such thing.

Low noise antennas exist and one type is a shielded loop. The noise
improvement is from local noise sources not distant radiating far
fields.

Of course. To me, this proves my point about the antenna in itself. But
again, I don't
consider adding decoupling as making an antenna or even antenna system
"low noise".
That might be an end result to a guy with loads of local noise, but to
a guy in the woods,
it means nada...His noise level in the woods should still be the same.

As far as #1,
1/4 wave Marconi mono-pole electric field sensitive unbalanced., as
being a worst case,
I would think that depends on how it's set up. IE: grounded at the
base, radials, etc as
John mentioned...I never run "incomplete" antennas. Ever...
My 1/4 wave's are not overly prone to common mode problems, but as I
mentioned, if I use a
1/4 wave, it would be properly installed with the lower "half" of the
antenna included,
either as radials, or at least grounded. A balanced coax fed dipole can
be quite bad, if the operation
of the choke, balun, etc is not functioning properly. This would
usually show up more on bands higher
than it's half wave length. IE: Using a 40 meter dipole on 20 meters,
etc..With the hi Z feed on
20m, a usual 1:1 balun would be fairly useless as far as decoupling the
feedline. MK

BTW, if the type on these post's gets goofy, it's cuz I'm using the new
google "beta" and the line wrapping
has changed, and is driving me nuts...It wants to run off the page
forever, unless I manual hit return, and that
drives me crazy. The "old" google, auto wrapped as you typed. Why do
they always
have to mess up something that works perfectly well as is....Or
was...Overall, I don't
like this new google beta much at all.

Low noise antennas exist and one type is a shielded loop. The noise
improvement is from local noise sources not distant radiating far
fields.

Of course. To me, this proves my point about the antenna in itself. But
again, I don't
consider adding decoupling as making an antenna or even antenna system
"low noise".
That might be an end result to a guy with loads of local noise, but to
a guy in the woods,
it means nada...His noise level in the woods should still be the same.

As far as #1,
1/4 wave Marconi mono-pole electric field sensitive unbalanced., as
being a worst case,
I would think that depends on how it's set up. IE: grounded at the
base, radials, etc as
John mentioned...I never run "incomplete" antennas. Ever...
My 1/4 wave's are not overly prone to common mode problems, but as I
mentioned, if I use a
1/4 wave, it would be properly installed with the lower "half" of the
antenna included,
either as radials, or at least grounded. A balanced coax fed dipole can
be quite bad, if the operation
of the choke, balun, etc is not functioning properly. This would
usually show up more on bands higher
than it's half wave length. IE: Using a 40 meter dipole on 20 meters,
etc..With the hi Z feed on
20m, a usual 1:1 balun would be fairly useless as far as decoupling the
feedline. MK

BTW, if the type on these post's gets goofy, it's cuz I'm using the new
google "beta" and the line wrapping
has changed, and is driving me nuts...It wants to run off the page
forever, unless I manual hit return, and that
drives me crazy. The "old" google, auto wrapped as you typed. Why do
they always
have to mess up something that works perfectly well as is....Or
was...Overall, I don't
like this new google beta much at all.

"N",

Its about 'effective communication' as John Doty posted earlier
in this thread.

The average Shortwave Listener (SWL) who owns a Shortwave Radio
and WANTS More-Out-of-It; simply wants to 'know':

- What to Buy and How to Put It Up.

- Or - What to Build and How to Do It.

- NO Rhyme-or-Reason is Required [.]
[ Please - Just Tell Me - What To Do ]


1. So 'suggesting' they Buy a PAR End Fed Shortwave Listener
(EF-SWL) Antenna and 'configuring' the Antenna in the [Shape]
of an Inverted "L" Antenna.

PAR Electronics "End Fed Shortwave Listener" (EF-SWL) Antenna
POPCOM= http://www.popular-communications.co...landOct04.html
MT= http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/mt2003reviews.html
eHAM= http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3707
PAR= http://www.parelectronics.com/swl_end.htm
UR= http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/sw_ant/2205.html
GE= http://www.grove-ent.com/ANT8.html

Telling the SWL 'what-to-do' in general simple terms.
http://tinyurl.com/66lhs
http://tinyurl.com/683gd
http://tinyurl.com/4qmqw


2. Or simply 'recommending' that they READ three WebPages
to gain some understanding of the "Low Noise" SWL Antenna.
http://tinyurl.com/4kp7m

CONSIDER BUILDING A "LOW NOISE" ANTENNA:
Try building an Improved SWL Random Wire Antenna that uses a
9:1 Matching Transformer (Balun / MLB) then you may not see
any real 'improvement' in your receive signal.
This is the so called "Low Noise" SWL Antenna.
Three "Must" Links to Read -wrt- Low Noise SWL Antenna
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortw...na/message/949
[ Please READ These Three Links ]
http://www.anarc.org/naswa/badx/ante...e_antenna.html
http://www.anarc.org/naswa/badx/ante..._longwire.html
http://www.anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/grounding.html
ABOUT THE "LOW NOISE" ANTENNA 'DESIGN CONCEPTS':
A Random Wire Antenna Element coupled via a 9:1 Matching
Transformer at the Near-End of the Antenna with a Ground
Rod and Coax Cable Feed-in-Line to the Receiver. This is
the basic SWL Antenna that uses the "Low Noise Antenna"
'design concepts' that were {popularized} by John Doty.
..
..
All are WELCOME at the Shortwave Listener (SWL) "Antenna Ashram"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shortw...na/message/502
Some Say: On A Clear Day You Can See Forever.
I BELIEVE: On A Clear Night . . .
You Can Hear Forever and Beyond, The BEYOND !
[ With the a SWL Antenna of your own making. ]
..
..

RHF wrote:
"N",

Its about 'effective communication' as John Doty posted earlier
in this thread.

I think I've fairly well communicated my thoughts on the matter...
Thats all I intended to do. But it seems some have problems with even
that..
Every time I post something here, I get a load of @$#^$*%('s climbing
down my back. Get over it! If you disagree with something I say, fine.
I have
no problems with that. But to harp just because I won't dumb myself
down to
your "supposed" r.r.s.w. monkey level status, really starts to grate on
my nerves.

The average Shortwave Listener (SWL) who owns a Shortwave Radio
and WANTS More-Out-of-It; simply wants to 'know':

I'm not an "average" shortwave listener, and I don't claim to cater to
them.
Actually, I don't claim to cater to anyone....It's not my job.

- What to Buy and How to Put It Up.

That will stir more conflict than this thread....:/

- Or - What to Build and How to Do It.

I think the user should decide that. Not some guy 1000 or more miles
away...
Only he knows what he really wants or needs..I have no problems telling

someone how to build something, but for the most part, it's all been
covered a
zillion times over...Thats why they sell books. Thats why I have books.


- NO Rhyme-or-Reason is Required [.]

I can't live that way myself. I refuse to be "dumbed down" to trained
monkey
level, just because this is a shortwave listeners group. If I get too
technical for some,
"which I really don't think I do", or I get anal retentive because
people
keep calling certain antennas "low noise", they can just ignore it.
Many people *do* want
to know the truth,or maybe a little more detail about certain things.
They may not reply
to any of the posts.
Many people read the stuff,that never actually post. It's not like I
use a bunch of
fancy named mumbo jumbo, or obtuse theories designed to confuse people.
If they want to
call them "lower noise antenna systems", I'd have less problem with
that. But as I
said, I don't consider simply decoupling a feedline as making it a "low
noise" antenna
system. Even if that could be the end result for some. It's just acting
normally without
the common currents screwing up the operation.
If you take a milked down stock 302 ford engine with say 150 hp when
running
normally, and 2 plugs are fouled, allowing only 110 hp out, changing
all the plugs
does not make the engine a blueprinted 400 hp race engine. It will now
run properly with
the new plugs, but it will still be the same stock 150 hp engine. This
probably won't make much sense
to you, but that's a fairly fitting analogy I think...
The decoupled antenna system is just acting normally. The un-decoupled
antenna system
is not. It's a defective system. It would be more accurate to call such
a system a "high noise" system, than
it is to call the decoupled system "low noise". Or to me anyway...
I just want to make sure people understand that the lower noise they
experience
is due to decoupling the feedline from the antenna, and has nothing to
do with
the antenna itself. I'm sure many already realize this. But it seems
fairly obvious many
don't. I'm also sure not *everyone* wants to live in the dark like a
mushroom.
I make no apologies for being anal retentive. That is my job.




[ Please - Just Tell Me - What To Do ]

Why? It's not my job....:/ You should already be fairly well set up
anyway
judging from all the links you post ...

MK

MK,

All of what you have written defines You 'being' YOU !
{and that is Good}

All of what I have written defines Me 'being' ME !
{and that is Good}
..
i guess we are communicating - pal ~ RHF
..
..

Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips coming!
Bruce Jensen

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips
coming!

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.

"Michael Lawson" wrote in message
...

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Guys Guys - there is both room for, and value in, both approaches.

I'm glad that both of you post here. Keep those antenna tips
coming!

Which reminds me....

I was perusing the ground articles in hard-core-dx.com,
and I was curious about one of the articles there (probably
was one of John's) stating that a good way of eliminating
common mode interference is to ground the shield separately
away from the 9:1 transformer. That I can do easily, but I
was curious about the next statement about attaching the
ground directly to the shield.

My thinking is that it would be smarter to attach the ground
to the shield via a ground block, but the only ground blocks
I can find use the F connectors, not the 239/259 ones. Is it
necessarily a good idea to strip the coating off the coax,
exposing the shield, and clamping that shield to the ground
rod? Seems like you'd be exposing the connection to the
elements, probably hastening the demise of the coax at that
point. Not to mention the changing of the interaction of
the two conductors by changing it's form...

--Mike L.