This will be my last post on the subject as I can see others have posted the same concepts.

First, the Beverage is a travelling wave antenna- resonance is not an issue, nor is it desirable. The Beverage is however matched to the receiver by a transformer. The gain is quite low, thus the matching. One might also note that the active antennas are also nowhere close to being resonant- they are a very high Z electric field probe whose impedance is brought  down via  a source follower or emitter follower.

Matching an antenna to the receiver (at HF) means more signal (and noise in an equal amount) is received. However, efficiency is not an issue at HF. Our noise floor is determined by:
1. Atmospheric noise
2. Galactic noise
3. Manmade noise

If you doubt this, turn your radio on to  any HF frequency with no signals, then disconnect your antenna. If the noise level does NOT drop, then there is something wrong with your receiver.

Isn't it odd that the top receive antennas for 160M are all non-resonant, have very low gain, but do have excellent patterns and therefore high RDF?

Beverages
Multiple/phased  Beverages
EWE's
Flags
Pennants
Receive 4 squares and their ilk- i.e short E field phased verticals

NONE of these antennas are anywhere close to being resonant and yet the world's top  DXers all prefer them Hmmmmm.

Check out K7TJR's site of low band receive antennas. For the uninformed,  RDF is the figure of merit here- the higher the RDF, the better the antenna (i.e. its ability to reject noise from unwanted directions). Note that the WORST of the lot is a resonant inverted Vee at an RDF of 0.6:
http://www.k7tjr.com/rx1comparison.htm

As soon as you find someone to agree with your "resonance is best for RX antennas",  let us know Fred. Tom, W8JI is always available to offer his thoughts.

73,

Dale W4OP

Hi Fred,

With all due respect, I don't think you have a handle on the math behind either noise/stochastic processes or information theory.
Resonance has nothing to do with S/N. Yes, signals will be stronger- and so will the noise- unless   you can explain to me how a given  antenna "knows" the difference between signals and noise or point me to a professional article that verifies this.

The antenna bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate received signal to noise- that is 100% a function of the front end noise figure (in the case of VHF and up) and the channel bandwidth.
If I were to believe the above then a 3-30MHz log periodic antenna with say 8dbD gain on 14MHz and F/B of 20dB would not receive (or TX) as well as a Yagi designed specifically for 14MHz that had the SAME gain and F/B. Obviously, such is  NOT the case.

As for an omni active electric field probe performing as well as a Beverage, please review ON4UN's text on section on receive antennas or the W8JI site at:
http://www.w8ji.com/receiving.htm

I think you would  be well served to get a text on information theory or review some of the writings of W8JI.

Dale W4OP

I use an active rotatable Flag antenna and a 7' rotatable active loop. Neither come anywhere close to my 4 Beverages.

Could you explain why a 30MHz bandwidth of a Beverage (of course, it does not function as  a Beverage over 30MHz) yields a poor S/N  ratio. My engineering background in noise theory tells me the S/N of a received signal is totally dependent upon the bandwidth of the receiver channel.
And the narrow front lobe of a Beverage is far superior to other antennas in rejecting noise- see W8JI on RDF- receive directivity factor.

Dale W4OP

Hi Bob et al,

All good points- and I do indeed recall PolyPaks.
It is interesting that issues we put up with "back in the day" we would never live  with today. And rigs we were pretty happy with back then seem abysmal today.

I recall getting a Gotham vertical from my Elmer. No matter how much I jerked with it as a kid, It never came close to meeting those wonderful QST ads for it.

Nostalgia- it's not what it used to be...

Dale W4OP

I have to defend the Eico 753.
I think a lot of the hams trashing the 753 are going on hearsay as opposed to actually having owned one.
The transceiver is very similar to the NCX-3- in both circuitry and panel layout. In fact, if one were to view the matching power supplies from on top- the layouts are identical. Eico did use one more stage of filtering on the low B+.

The model I restored was the 3rd variant- all solid state VFO. After plotting VFO drift vs. time, I changed out some of the caps with a custom combination of Nxxx temperature compensating caps and the resultant drift was quite good. I then used white closed cell foam to further isolate the VFO compartment (above and below chassis) from rapid temperature changes. Audio reports were excellent and the build quality was top notch.
Now, you might argue that my 753 was not original, but I did not do anything to it that any competent ham of that era could have done. If one were to add a Cumbria Designs X-lock, the rig would have been about as stable as today's DDS controlled radios.
You can see my restoration at:

http://www.parelectronics.com/vintage-eico-753-transciever.php

So, for the price back then, I still argue that the 753 was a good value and a very well built rig.

Dale W4OP

Until I bought the Elecraft K3/P3, I would have said the Ten Tec Omni VI+.
Both have excellent roofing selectivity, DSP and wonderful QSK.
If you like a full kit, The DZ Kits Sienna has the fastest QSK that I know of.

Dale W4OP

You could do a lot worse than the Drake Twins. The C line has a fabulous NB and PBT. The later model of the R-4C accommodated up to 3 CW filters. A little easier to span the bands as they tune in 500KHz segments as opposed to the Collins 200KHz/band position.
Although not built like the Collins rigs, they perform  as well if not better.
Many years back there was a saying:
Rich hams buy Collins, smart hams buy Drake.

A bit simplistic, but you get the jist.

I have owned both and enjoyed both.
Still have the C line
Dale W4OP

You're right Darrell- if he is talking about AM also , then there may be an  overall AVC issue.

I had followed the thread regarding another poster who also suggested that for SSB/CW he turn down the RF gain- and assumed, the positive repsonse from the original poster confirmed this.

 Dale W4OP

The issue with the 32S1 is as you stated- they used an audio tone (around 1600Hz from memory, so it's 2nd harmonic and higher would be well down the SSB filter skirt) to modulate the SSB signal. Even on a well aligned TX, there is always going to be carrier and opposite sideband generated- and maybe evn more garbage. Lore has it that CW ops using the 32S1 and KWM-2 on CW were  getting pink tickets.

I can run my Hallicrafters FPM-300 MK II (which uses the same scheme) well but i have further cleaned up the tone generator and run the PA at 14W- that's all I require to drive my amp. The output looks quite good on my spectrum analyzer.

Dale W4OP

For receivers that use a BFO for CW/SSB the AVC  has to be disabled when using the BFO. If iot were not, the BFO injection would swamp the AVC rendering the Reciever deaf. Same reaon the S meter is inoperative when the BFO is used. The advent of the product detector overcame these shortcomings.
His 109 is performing as it should.

Dale W4OP

My guess is that they are feeding this a bit like an off center fed dipole- but in this case in order to achieve a match closer to 50 Ohms.

Two or 4 radials is not enough to keep common mode off the feedline/mast.

The marketing hype about super low angle and low noise is just that- marketing stuff.
Build you own.
And what's wrong with dBi??

Dale W4OP

I have just posted the restoration of  my Morrow mobile Twins- MB-6 / MB-565 on my restoration site at:

http://www.parelectronics.com/vintage-radio-restoration.php
last thumnail- lower right.

As can be seen in one of the photos- these were in very tough shape mechanically and had a number of intriguing electrical issues to be solved. I believe these to be the Cadillac of the  mobile Twins both from a design and feature standpoint.
Enjoy,

Dale W4OP

Hi Al,

There are a lot of sources for the decal paper. Here's one:
http://www.decalpaper.com/?gclid=COqglc7rr68CFcJM4AodYifVoA
I have used laser and inkjet media.

I am not sure what you mean by using the Exacto knife for cut out after the dcal is applied.
 Before soaking/applying the decal, it is trimmed to its smallest dimensions
The decals, as thin as they are, will still show the edges of the decal when clear coated. So by applying a couple of layers of clear ( I use an airbrush with automotive enamel most often as it is very hard), and then wet sand- this makes the surface all the same thickness. Follow with a final clear coat.

Dale W4OP

I am guessing this is a vertically oriented 20M loop? A horizontal full wavelength  loop at any height has the majority of its energy going straight up- not what one would generally want for 20M DX. At low angles  a high full wave loop would have a pattern about like a dipole. So if this loop is horizontal, put up a dipole, you'll be much better off for DX.

Dale W4OP

I used my CAD program to create the graphics and printed to water slip decal media. Once the decals were applied and dried, I sprayed on 2 auto enamel clear coats, wet sanded with 1200 grit wet/dry paper to remove any hint of the edges of the decals, and then a final satin clear coat. The end result is far superior to silk screening (albeit labor intensive).

Dale W4OP