To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:25:03 -0500
From: "w8ji.tom" <w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] ANTENNA MATCHING
To: wa3gin@erols.com, towertalk@contesting.com
Reply-to: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com
Message-id: <0F2K00K5CG1Z5Y@PM06SM.PMM.CW.NET>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Hi Dave,
> capacitance. My operating preference on 75m falls on just a few
> frequencies. With many very strong signals on the band I'd like to
> adjust the tuner for the highest possible "Q" hopefully adding some
> selectivity to my old transceiver (enhanced bandpass filtering).
The Q of the tuner will never get high enough to improve receiver
performance, unless the receiver has front-end overload problems from
signals several dozens of kHz away.
> o Is it correct to presume the transmitter side of the tuner does not
> play a major part in
> adjusting the relative "Q" of the circuit?
Every reactive component in the system adds Q to the tuner. Most formulas
used in Amateur text (like the one for amplifiers where tank Q equals Rp
over Xc1) only count one component, and calculates Q lower than it really
is. That misleads people into thinking one component sets the Q of a
system.
> o Is it correct to presume settings of minimum inductance while using
> the maximum
> antenna matching capacitance will yield the highest "Q"?
Not in the common C-L-C T network. Minimum L is minimum Q. A conventional
pi is the opposite.
Tuner loss increases and power handling decreases with more L in a
conventional T network. If you want to arc or burn-up a common T network
tuner (and increase Q), reduce the C and increase the L.
73 Tom
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|