[TenTec] OT: Question to the group

[Gary J FollettDukes HiFi]

Not “wrong”, just dated a bit in regards to WARC band operation.

The balanced link matchbox design could match just about anything. It was not terribly lossy and it was easy to use.

I have used them with solid state radios and they work beautifully on the bands for which they were intended - far better than the autotuners.

I did not intend to give the notion that it was perfect. However, for a balanced line tuner, it was better than what is commercially available today, IMHO.

Improvement is always welcome though…
Gary

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:29 AM, - - <rick at dj0ip.de> wrote:
> 
> Sorry Gary but you're wrong about the Johnson V Matchbox.
> 
> It was a long ways from being the best matchbox ever.  It had a couple of deficiencies which back in the days of no WARC bands and tube radios with Pi-Networks, didn't make much difference.   
> 
> 25 years later its deficiencies were very apparent. 
> 
> On my web site I explain that in detail and show people how to modify their JV Matchbox to bring it up into the modern times.
> 
> See: http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/viking-vs-annecke/ <http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/viking-vs-annecke/> 
> 
> See: http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/j-viking-upgrade/ <http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/j-viking-upgrade/> 
> 
> Several people have successfully modified their JVM using my instructions and all are much happier campers now that the dificiencies have been fixed.
> 
> 73
> 
> Rick,DJ0IP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Gary J FollettDukes HiFi <dukeshifi at comcast.net> hat am 16. Juli 2016 um 04:31 geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>> The old EF Johnson Matchbox, both the 275 watt and the 1 KW version were truly balanced output.
>> 
>> That was the very best tuner design ever. The actual matching coil was the balun.
>> 
>> Virtually every other tuner uses an unbalanced tuning system and then uses a BALUN too couple to balanced feed lines. Therefore, no BALUN is, of course, needed at the antenna.
>> 
>> I used 600 ohm balanced line once to feed a cubical quad (Gem quad) and it worked extremely well.
>> 
>> Oh, I too always wonder why folks fret so much when they only get 90 watts output instead of 100. no one anywhere can hear the difference between 90 and 100 watts, not even in a head-to-head shout down. Turn it down to 50 watts, use half the electricity and the listener will barely tell the difference on the other end.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> W0DVN
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Jim Allen <jim.allen at longhornband.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I had one of those, not at 60', about half that. CC&Rs and all that.
>>> 
>>> What is a "well designed truly balanced antenna tuner?" From what I've read, there aren't many. I have an MFJ 974HB. There is the Palstar whatever the latest model nomenclature is. Rick has the whole run down on his extensive website.
>>> 
>>> What is good at lower heights?
>>> 
>>> 73 de W6OGC Jim Allen 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>> >> On Jul 15, 2016, at 17:28, Scott Harwood <scotthsr at earthlink.net> wrote:>> 
>> >> Well, for 80 - 10 meters, how about a 135 foot wire dipole up about 60 feet fed with 600 ohm open wire line into a well designed truly balanced antenna tuner located right at the transceiver, as one example?
>> >> 
>> >> Scott K4VWK
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Jim Allen <jim.allen at longhornband.net>
>> >>> Sent: Jul 15, 2016 5:53 PM
>> >>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec at contesting.com>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group
>> >>> 
>> >>> What is "a low-loss matching and feed system into an efficient antenna?"
>> >>> 
>> >>> This is the "Holy Grail" of amateur radio, if we can find it.
>> >>> 
>> >>> 73 de W6OGC Jim Allen 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Sent from my iPad
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 16:05, cegtv1 via TenTec <tentec at contesting.com> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> a low-loss matching and feed system into an efficient antenna
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> TenTec mailing list
>> >>> TenTec at contesting.com
>> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>> >> 
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> TenTec mailing list
>> >> TenTec at contesting.com
>> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TenTec mailing list
>>> TenTec at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>