Skip, That is "telling it like it was".
If you want to go back to those "good old days", build yourself a link coupled tuner. It will likely use plug-in coils and perhaps a swinging link.
Then you can tune it just like you did on your old transmitter/amplifier - except you do not have to "dip the plate" and change the link coupling to bring the plate current up to where you want. You adjust that tuner so you have a low SWR at the input. If you can't get a low SWR, adjust the transmission line taps on the coil and try again until you get it right. Each antenna requires different coil taps and different tuning.
Tune up and band to band QSYs were not quick and easy in those days. Those who wanted instant band hopping had multiple amplifiers each with their dedicated antennas (rich hams) - now we can have that same capability with a single multiband antenna and an ATU.
While I do have a couple of those tuners (with their wide spaced "bread slicer" capacitors) in my collections, I prefer to use the newer ATUs - push a button and it finds a match.
The old methods are not better or worse, but just different. Newer stuff does it easier - but it is interesting to know what is happening in the stuff that does the impedance transformation. Engineers know the concepts, and older hams know what is involved even if they do not understand the theory. It seems that many newer hams do not care - push the button on the microphone and make a contact is the limit of their interest. Perhaps we need to launch a renewed effort in bringing newer hams into the fold of understanding what is going on other than pushing the PTT button on the microphone. I hate to see the ranks of ham radio descend into the same category as CB operators, but I think we are headed that way as far as understanding what is involved in RF transmission and reception.
If you want a computer parallel (for those digitally inclined) it is the difference between someone who only wants to do email and web surfing and those who understand (or attempt to learn) networking and how all that fits into the World Wide Web and Internet of Things.
We do not have to fully understand propagation, circuits, antenna theory and such to push that PTT button and talk, but if that is all you do, it is more akin to CB than it is to amateur radio.
OK, I will crawl off my soapbox for the time being. 73. Don W3FPR On 12/18/2018 8:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
Yep, the term was known when I became KN6DGW in 1953, but somehow no one cared. Standing waves were sort of benign, you ran your transmission line [often 300 ohm open-wire, or TV twinlead] to the 2 or 3 turn link and adjusted it inwards until your TX was "loaded" to rated input power. Standing waves formed the basis of "Lecher Lines" used to measure frequency [well ... wavelength] generally for VHF and above. Standing waves just didn't create the heartburn that they seem to today. Granted, today's TX are comfortable with 50 ohms and not much else but that's just impedance matching networks.
______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [email protected]
