On 7 Mar 2006 23:50:11 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

For One and All,

QUESTION - Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antenna Tuners
- - - Do You Have An Opinion ? - - -

Why Antenna Tuners Aren't Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening
http://www.nyx.net/~dgrunber/tuner.ssi
- - - by - - - Daniel A. Grunberg

The same argument could be used to say, "Why 9-to-1 Baluns Aren't
Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening."

Bob
k5qwg

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:58:45 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

On 7 Mar 2006 23:50:11 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

For One and All,

QUESTION - Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antenna Tuners
- - - Do You Have An Opinion ? - - -

Why Antenna Tuners Aren't Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening
http://www.nyx.net/~dgrunber/tuner.ssi
- - - by - - - Daniel A. Grunberg

The same argument could be used to say, "Why 9-to-1 Baluns Aren't
Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening."

Bob
k5qwg

If one is a true RF professional the idea of putting a Hi Z generator
into a Low Z load is too much. The 9:1 autotransormer also puts every
part of the antenna at DC ground, thus protecting the radio's input.
Plus, it's a very elegant way to connect the wire to the shielded
cable.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:17:18 GMT, David wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:58:45 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

On 7 Mar 2006 23:50:11 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

For One and All,

QUESTION - Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antenna Tuners
- - - Do You Have An Opinion ? - - -

Why Antenna Tuners Aren't Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening
http://www.nyx.net/~dgrunber/tuner.ssi
- - - by - - - Daniel A. Grunberg

The same argument could be used to say, "Why 9-to-1 Baluns Aren't
Necessarily Useful for Shortwave Listening."

Bob
k5qwg

If one is a true RF professional the idea of putting a Hi Z generator
into a Low Z load is too much. The 9:1 autotransormer also puts every
part of the antenna at DC ground, thus protecting the radio's input.
Plus, it's a very elegant way to connect the wire to the shielded
cable.

Still, you have that wonderfully sensitive receiver, and your balun
hasn't changed the signal to noise ratio; it's only made everthing
louder. Same argument he's using against antenna tuners :-)

bob
k5qwg

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:05:33 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Still, you have that wonderfully sensitive receiver, and your balun
hasn't changed the signal to noise ratio; it's only made everthing
louder. Same argument he's using against antenna tuners :-)

bob
k5qwg

It does help signal:noise. It keeps the antenna away from the house.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:40:32 GMT, David wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:05:33 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Still, you have that wonderfully sensitive receiver, and your balun
hasn't changed the signal to noise ratio; it's only made everthing
louder. Same argument he's using against antenna tuners :-)

bob
k5qwg

It does help signal:noise. It keeps the antenna away from the house.

And the rest of the noise? Powerlines, atmospheric noise, heterodynes,
etcetera? And do you really think coax keeps manmade noise out?

bob
k5qwg

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:27:57 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:40:32 GMT, David wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:05:33 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Still, you have that wonderfully sensitive receiver, and your balun
hasn't changed the signal to noise ratio; it's only made everthing
louder. Same argument he's using against antenna tuners :-)

bob
k5qwg

It does help signal:noise. It keeps the antenna away from the house.

And the rest of the noise? Powerlines, atmospheric noise, heterodynes,
etcetera? And do you really think coax keeps manmade noise out?

bob
k5qwg

It keeps the noise I make out of my radio.