Messages

586

General Radio Discussion / Re: Propagation

« on: July 01, 2014, 2314 UTC »

True, and those of us without noise blankers on our SW radios have to choose the radio that happens to have the best ANL characteristics. Some of them seem to reject noise a bit better than others....

But I haven't had so much trouble with static crashes, as much as mediocre conditions, and local  (or semi-local) intermittent powerline buzz.

Here in the PNW the static crashes don't appear to be as severe as they are in the Eastern half of the U.S., although you definitely get a lot of them on 8 Mhz and below during summer.

587

General Radio Discussion / Re: Little White Boxes

« on: June 28, 2014, 1045 UTC »

Are the boxes what the article says they are, or are they for another, less sinister purpose? That is the real question.

The fact is, if you carry a cellphone with you, and you have it powered on, you can be tracked. They don't have to mount little white boxes to track you. They can just hack into the data from the cell system.

588

General Radio Discussion / Re: Propagation

« on: June 28, 2014, 1027 UTC »

Regardless of the solar flux numbers, sunspot numbers, etc., conditions at this QTH over the last couple of days have been mediocre.

589

Huh? / Re: Cold War-Era CORONA Spy Satellite Imagery Has Revealed Lost Ancient Cities

« on: June 27, 2014, 1731 UTC »

Thanks, I see two shadowy parallel lines. Is that them?
Its a mind trip. Ancient human evidence that has been there for eons is covered up by modern humanity's population explosion.

yeah, I think those shadowy parallel lines are remnants -- slight depressions -- left from ancient streets. If you look closely you'll see a lot of them in the middle of the picture.

When aerial photography began to be a big new thing early in the 20th century, geographers and geologists noticed things about the topography you wouldn't normally notice from the ground. In many cases, you could see the traces of ancient riverbeds, and in Britain, old roads and stuff..

590

Huh? / Re: The World Cup of Soccer

« on: June 27, 2014, 1729 UTC »

Looks like we squeaked by and are still in the running. We didn't score against Germany (I think they're rated either #1 or #2 in the world), but we held them to one goal.

Our defense seems pretty good. I don't know enough about soccer to know whether our offense was affected by the rain, or we were just outplayed. Maybe a bit of both.

591

General Radio Discussion / Re: House Bill Would Require FCC to Extend PRB-1 Coverage to Restrictive Covenants

« on: June 27, 2014, 1726 UTC »

Right on. HOAs have their place but way too often they get out of hand. Almost a gestapo-like mentality towards minor things -- and a hank of wire going from one's house to a tree or a fence is a minor thing.

Should also hold up in court (if it passes) and is ever challenged. Public policy can trump private contracts.

592

Huh? / Re: The World Cup of Soccer

« on: June 25, 2014, 0241 UTC »

The problem for most Americans with soccer (aside from some measure of unfamiliarity, at least until now) is the low scoring. And the idea of a 0-0 tie. But then, you also get low scores in baseball...

I watched the US and Portugal game, it wasn't the first soccer game I've watched on TV, but was more interesting than the last one (final of the previous World Cup). Maybe it's because the US is actually playing better. Will probably catch the game on Thursday, also.

As for the name, soccer is less generic than "football". Even in other countries, they have several types of football. I don't know why any Brits would get angry over our using a word they invented. They need to get over it. Before long, we'll be beating them at the game anyway.

RE: Aussie Rules: saw that on cable TV a long time ago. Fascinating, fast paced game. I'm surprised it isn't followed more over here in the U.S.

593

Huh? / Re: Cold War-Era CORONA Spy Satellite Imagery Has Revealed Lost Ancient Cities

« on: June 24, 2014, 1449 UTC »

In the one black and white photo about halfway down the page (Tell Hamoukar), you can see a gridwork of what appears to be slight depressions in the ground, they look like shadowy lines in the middle of the picture.  I think that's what they're referring to. The shadowy lines may be evidence of ancient roads or canals, long since filled in or eroded.

594

Huh? / Re: Arizona senator hosting ‘chemtrail’ forum

« on: June 24, 2014, 1435 UTC »

I've heard plenty of the shows on this subject on Coast To Coast AM and I just don't believe these "chemtrails" are real.

The guests interviewed always say there's a difference between 'chemtrails' and 'contrails', and that the difference is that water vapor contrails immediately disappear while 'chemtrails' don't. But that doesn't really make sense.

Clouds are made of water vapor and they don't immediately disappear. So why should contrails? And I have yet to see a plane doing a pattern in the sky laying down contrails, like many of those folks say on the shows.

A lot of the guests and callers mention the 'X's in the sky they see, not ever having looked at an airway map, where one can see airways crossing probably where those 'X's are.

Even so, it's a good thing these government officials are addressing this issue. Too often government officials refuse to address what seems to be wacky conspiracy theories and all it does is make the conspiracy theories seem more plausible.

595

General Radio Discussion / Re: Single-Chip Receivers Open the Way for Conversion to DAB+, DRM

« on: June 24, 2014, 0652 UTC »

There is a new Eton radio with AM FM SW LW and DAB, perhaps it's using one of the chips mentioned in the article. The problem is, who's really going to buy such radios?

Younger people are getting their radio programming via smartphones and online streams, and over the air radio is eventually going to fade away.

I don't see radio completely disappearing for a couple decades (at least here in the U.S., where the government is loathe to declare FM and AM dead, like governments have in other countries) -- if only due to population growth and immigration.

596

Equipment / Re: Gear required to take the step

« on: June 24, 2014, 0640 UTC »

The Radio Shack PLL World Receiver (200-0629) I mentioned in the earlier post is made by Sangean, and also has a BFO. $80 new at your local Radio Shack.

Works well on SW (FETs in the RF and IF stages), is probably capable of FM DX as well (extra FET IF stage).

MW section has excellent selectivity, and works great with an external loop.

Has built in protection so you can attach an external antenna without worrying about static electricity zapping the RF transistors (although you would still want to keep it disconnected if there's a thunderstorm).

I have one and it pulls in plenty of stations with just 20 ft. of wire.

597

Equipment / Re: Gear required to take the step

« on: June 17, 2014, 1852 UTC »

Like anything, it depends on how much you're willing to spend.

A good digital portable will get you a lot of signals and -- depending on the signal strengths in your area, or whether there are any high power AM stations real close -- you can usually add some wire to the external antenna jack, or clip to the radio's whip, and hear SW broadcasts and HF ham transmissions without too much effort.

I'm not into the brand (never used one), but the Tecsun brand of digital portables is popular right now, and some people swear by them. If you're just interested in listening to SW, AM-modulated broadcasts, Radio Shack's digital World Receiver does a good job for that, and goes for about $80.

If you have the money to spend, and really want to get seriously into SW and HF listening, there are SDR's and tabletop receivers, some which cost a bit -- but people swear by those, also.

A lot of the guys here use SDR's and different brands of tabletop receivers, and say they're the way to go. A more expensive, higher technology radio like one of those will probably bring in a lot more signals, but then you also need to consider an antenna. Even a fantastic radio won't bring in a lot if you don't have a decent antenna.

I use a Realistic (Radio Shack) digital portable from the 1990's and about 20 ft. of wire for an antenna. I hear a lot of stuff with just that. It may not be the preferable way to go for some, but it works for me.

598

Equipment / Re: Portable HF Antenna question

« on: June 17, 2014, 1843 UTC »

If you're planning on transmitting with the antenna, you'd definitely want to solder the top back onto the mast / whip.

I'm sure it was designed to be used with that length -- even with a loading coil, they usually take the length of the whip or mast into consideration.

I know with a loaded whip CB antenna, you shorten the whip too much, the SWR goes way up. I'd think it would be the same with your antenna.

599

Equipment / Re: When was my GE Superadio III made?

« on: June 17, 2014, 1840 UTC »

I threw some of the other info in there just in case SR owners out there wanted to know at least one reason why two SR's of the same model would have different performance.

Glad I was able to help.

600

General Radio Discussion / Re: Any new shortwave stations?

« on: June 16, 2014, 1619 UTC »

Come to think of it, they did have some spots on some of the stations. 

But there was a period of time (1991-2002) I did very little listening to Shortwave (aside from Radio Turkey), so my memory of SW broadcasters during that period is pretty limited.