I haven't had lots of different tuners to compare myself, but I do have
a Johnson KW Matchbox tuner. It does a great job on Balanced lines. I
didn't really know about the Palastar but just checked it out on the
website. Looked like an interesting tuner. But to me the downside of
it was that there is a balun on the output, which of course as Don
stated is a dominating factor in losses in a tuner (at least maybe that
is what I took away from his comments as well as other discussions on
this subject in the past). Is there a modern tuner out there for
balanced lines that doesn't use a balun?
Maybe the proper comparison for more apples to apples comparison should
be made for tuners that are designed for type of feedline output or
maybe Hi-Z vs Lo-Z, as most today, including the Elecraft, are likely
moreso designed not for balanced line output and Hi-Z but coaxial output
and Lo-Z. Sure, many tuners may also have a balanced line output
option, but that is likely there as a convenience or for marketing or
whatever but is really just added on as compared to the overall tuner
being designed for Hi-Z and balanced output. While I like my Johnson KW
tuner for certain antennas I may opt for some other tuner for other
types of antennas. The type of tuner should be considered as a whole in
the antenna system, not as a one size fits all solution (unless there is
a tuner out there that really can do both ends of the spectrum equally
well).
When I first started getting back into QRP just over one year ago I had
my RockMite-40 sitting on top of the Johnson KW Matchbox. It was going
to a resonant antenna and didn't go through the tuner. Even though the
Matchbox is supposedly a low loss antenna tuner it did seem like there
was something just wrong about using it with a QRP rig, maybe like some
sort of sacralidge in its own way, but maybe that is just me.
Maybe the purist would say that only resonant antennas should be used so
a tuner is not needed. Okay, that makes some sense, but maybe I can get
an antenna with better overall performance than the extra losses
involved when using a tuner. Again, the whole systems needs to be
evaluated an not just individual parts of a system. If individual parts
are selected because they are the best but when put together they don't
work so well collectively it doesn't seem like a good solution. Maybe a
tuner with more versatility even if it has slightly higher losses is a
better solution for the next ham who doesn't use just one antenna at a
fixed location all the time. Certainly as QRPers we are all aware that
antenna systems are quite important and band conditions really dominate
how well we can communicate. But really, given good band conditions and
being able to somehow get some signal to something to radiate things
will result in being able to communicate.
I just installed the KAT2 in my K2 and am amazed at how fast it tunes.
I haven't tried it with a variety of different antenna configurations,
so I can't comment much on its verstatility. Unfortunately I'm not
currently using my balanced feedline antenna anymore due to a change in
QTH and a temporary hamshack setup, but the KAT2 seems to suit my needs
for now. If anything, at this time the Matchbox at least still looks
quite respectable sitting on the bench (farther away from the K2 than
when I had the RockMite sitting on top of the Matchbox, HI! HI!).
I hope my late night ramblings make some sense. Sorry if they don't.
Mark, NK8Q
K2 4876
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
