[Elecraft] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

[hawley, charles j jr]

I’ve used small tuned loops to null out local noise and various wire antennas. The biggest issue I’ve had with receiving antennas has been trying to keep the transmitted power out of the transceiver’s separate receive input. FYI, a pair of parallel crossed 1N914 diodes across the input worked well. Something I originally used for NMR receivers.

Chuck
KE9UW

Sent from my iPhone, cjack 

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Michael Blake via Elecraft <elecraft at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> 
> Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either. 
> 
> 73 - Mike - K9JRI
> 
> 
>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws at triconet.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to k9jri at mac.com
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to c-hawley at illinois.edu