Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Pi-L Network

To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re: Pi-L Network
From: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>
Reply-to: g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:38:19 +0200 (CEST)
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
Tom said:
>You aren't confusing a double L with a pi-L are you? You 
aren't assuming marine rigs used pi-Ls are you....when they 
actually commonly used double L's?<
No, I was thinking of 7.5kW and upwards transmitters, where frequency changing 
wasn't that common ( once on a frequency, it would be there for hours, and each 
tx was likely to only need about 6 channels anyway), wideband antennas such as 
rhombics were used, and the max SWR at the tx was limited to 2:1 max.
The HF marine bands are about as narrow as ham bands (in some cases much 
narrower), so the amount of retuning between band ends is in practice 
negligible. The exception is the MF band: in theory (and for Type Approval 
purposes in Europe), transmitters were required to operate over 1.605 to 
3.8MHz, but in practice, after WW2, frequencies used were mainly limited to 
2.009 at the bottom (International ship-ship) up to around 2.8 or 2.9 MHz. For 
Type Approval, the antenna load was 10 ohms in series with 250pF. In AM days, 
there were some Greek fishing boat frequencies above 3MHz, but not many - there 
was some (but very little real demand) requirement to cover up to 4.2MHz

73
Peter W6/G3RZP
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>