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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [email protected] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
