[Elecraft] Balanced solution for KAT500 tuner?

[David Gilbert]

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: 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
>