Sorry for any confusion. I thought you were trying to say that a balanced antenna tuner with a balanced current choke was generally more efficient than an unbalanced tuner with a balanced current choke. Was that your intent? If so, why?
73, Dave AB7E On 9/29/2012 3:37 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > I don't believe that is necessarily true. Can you cite a reference to > back up that statement? Or at least describe in physical terms (Q, > currents, voltages, component loss, etc) why that would be so? I'm > honestly curious what the difference would be. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > > On 9/29/2012 2:13 PM, Adrian wrote: >> 1:1 current balun has proven more efficient in conjunction with the >> appropriate balanced (matchbox style)tuner. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert G. Strickland >> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 4:26 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Balanced solution for KAT500 tuner? >> >> Jim... >> >> Is there anything to be gained in putting a 1:1 "balanced isolator" at the >> feed point of an antenna that is fed by a "parallel wire" feed line? Does >> such an arrangement achieve feed line isolation while preserving the ability >> of such an antenna to be driven on various bands other than its resonant >> frequency? Thanks for your input. >> >> ...robert >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
