Rick,
TNX for the spreadsheet - it's an interesting read. What I gleaned in a quick
analysis is that while they aren't as convenient, the "old school"
link-coupled tuners (in this case, the Johnson Matchboxes) seem to hold their
own pretty well against the newer technology, especially when it comes to
efficiency. Maybe there's something to be said for the use of air-wound
inductors and good quality variable caps (as opposed to toroidal inductors
and fixed caps) when it comes to antenna tuners?
73, Al
On Fri February 15 2013 9:48:57 am Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
> The March 2013 issue of QST has another Antenna Tuner test by Joel, W1ZR.
>
> This article is a good read because it also describes the ARRL's newest
> test method for antenna tuners.
>
> ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES I find people make in their thinking is, they
> believe that if their ATU can match the antenna, that's goodness. NOT!
> In addition to whatever losses the antenna itself may have, there may also
> be SIGNIFICANT matchbox losses. as this article points out on one of the
> boxes.
>
> The two Matchboxes tested here are the MFJ-976 and Palstar BT-1500A.
> <> What are their matching ranges?
> <> MORE IMPORTANT, how much power is lost in the matchbox when matching
> the various impedances?
>
> BTW, I have added these results to my "MATCHBOX SHOOT-OUT Spreadsheet" on
> my web site.
> It compares these tuners to others which the ARRL has previously tested.
> LINK: http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/matchbox-shoot-out/
>
> A HUGE THANK YOU TO JOEL and his colleagues for reporting on this
> interesting topic.
>
> 73
> Rick, DJ0IP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|