[Elecraft] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

[Wes Stewart]

I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, 
you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit.

I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for 
antenna change over in 1960 or so.  It was several years before I had a 
transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers 
came along is nonsense, IMHO of course.  Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, 
had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the 
January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches.  Lew even stated, "It is 
always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting 
and receiving."

In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, 
separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand 
bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. 
Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 
9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna.  I guess I'll have to 
try one someday.

Wes  N7WS






On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
> It’s an interesting book.
>
> Chuck
> KE9UW
>