TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] swr

To: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] swr
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>
Reply-to: geraldj@weather.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:41:18 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>


On 8/16/2010 11:16 PM, Richards wrote:
On 8/16/2010 10:18 PM, Dr. Gerald N. Johnson wrote:
A 43' vertical is a serious mismatch on 160 and 80, its too short,
has a low radiation resistance and lots of reactance. That makes a
tuner run a high loaded Q and have lots of circulating current in
its circuits.


Agreed. That kinda sums it up nicely.


I don't know what is in the $250 box, likely a loading coil with
some sort of switching like a series resonant circuit for each band
to select the right amount of loading coil. There wasn't a manual
available for it on line to learn more.


I could not find any details, either. I am thinking I favor Mr.
Salas's design - it is open, and apparently has the imprimatur of the
QST Editorial Board. It looks, good, too.

At the moment, I have a disagreement with the QST technical editor. In
the April QST he wrote that you can't make a parallel transmission line
with impedance lower than 87 ohms. That shows he's using the wrong formula for characteristic impedance of a parallel wire line that ARRL has been using wrong for all recorded history. The simple formula he uses was replaced in other radio handbooks commercial and ham in 1943 for low impedances. The simple formula is OK for impedances above 250 or 300 ohms and about half the time it shows in reference works it noted to be good only with the spacing is much much larger than the wire diameter. I just published (again) a paper on that topic in the 2010 Central States VHF Conference proceedings (can be seen on line at http://www.geraldj.networkiowa.com/papers/CSVHF2010/lztl1.JPG and
http://www.geraldj.networkiowa.com/papers/CSVHF2010/lztl2.JPG a repeat of
when I published in the VHFer on the same topic in 1966. I suppose I should submit it as an article in QST. I see in the latest QST that Ed Wetherhold is fighting with league publications on the sign of return loss numbers and is getting the same results as tilting with a wind mill. A Spanish wind mill at that. Perhaps HQ will read the CSVHF proceedings and correct their ways. Perhaps not.

================================== JHR
==============================

73, Jerry, K0CQ

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