I remember the reviews. I think you are correct.
But if you are going to want me to translate latin after all these
years...god help us all !! LOL LOL
73
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner
Isn't one of the key distinctions of the Ten Tec 238/B/C that these are
switched L networks, rather than T-networks, as I believe the Palstar is?
Some years back QST reviewed several external auto-tuners and with respect
to efficiency, the Ten Tec 253 came out far ahead of most competitors, as
did (surprising me) an MFJ tuner. They both handily were measured as being
far more efficient than the Palstar especially on the lower bands matching
low-Z loads.
There is a common factor between the MFJ and the TT-253 (and 238), and that
is that it is also an L network. Most Palstars are T-matches, right?
So forgetting the questions/comments about baluns, and whether the lowest
SWR is also the best match, and whether there may be multiple low-SWR tuning
points with a T-match...
Is an L-Match inherently less lossy than a T-match under most circumstances
(ceteris parabis)?
Thanks,
Art
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|