Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps

 To: Ian White GM3SEK Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps Steve Thompson Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:27:05 +0000
 ``` Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > > Let's think of two totally generalized impedances, (R1 in series with > jX1) and (R2 in series with X2). In this context X1 and X2 can have > either sign. > > Now add series elements -X1 and -X2 to cancel both reactances out. We > now have resistive impedances R1 and R2, which can be matched with the > minimum-Q solution using two elements in one of the L-network > configurations. This is where I started - but you can always add a first element to take you to a pure resistance that's nearer your target than (say) R1 is. Then, the L match from the new resistance to target will have a lower Q than the one from R1 to target and the three elements give you lower Q than two. I think the train of thought can be valid where you can't choose whichever of the L match permutations is needed for minimum Q - that's the trap I fell in to. Steve _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps ```
 Current Thread Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Peter Chadwick Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, R . Measures Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Steve Thompson Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Ian White GM3SEK Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Steve Thompson Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Ian White GM3SEK Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Steve Thompson <= Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Antenna traps, Ian White GM3SEK