[Elecraft] Balanced solution for KAT500 tuner?

[Adrian]

Another supportive example;

"One is not always better than the other, but my choice for general purpose
use would be a 1:1 current balun for better ATU loss near current maximum."

http://vk1od.net/balun/concept/4to1.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 8:37 AM
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Balanced solution for KAT500 tuner?


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: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Robert G. 
> Strickland
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 4:26 AM
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> 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:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html