Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 26, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
I've considered putting a tuner on my Bugcatcher for 80 meters, but haven't. The thing is so narrow there that the alternative is two taps for the phone portion of the band. That would more more for impedance matching rather than the loading coil itself. I have no real problem with that. I've often used simple L network tuners for matching mobile antennas. The system I have a problem with is using the tuner as the loading coil itself. It's usually a disaster as far as efficiency. Maximum current is at the coil, and often that coil will be surrounded by body metal. Not good.. Poor current distribution through the whip, and low overall efficiency. Not good.. If they left out bugcatchers in the test, no wonder all those tuner fed things looked so good... ![]() If your antenna acts very "high Q", that's actually good. ![]() It means it's probably a pretty decent radiator. I'd be more worried if it acted overly broadbanded, or low Q. You won't lose much if you use a tuner for Z matching in your case. MK |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A comparison of the DA100E with the AmRad active antennas. | Shortwave | |||
E-bay...Are we supposed to believe everything? | Shortwave | |||
Viking antennas by Childs Electronics ? Comparison ? | CB | |||
Comparison of three indoor active antennas | Shortwave | |||
mobile antenna impedance comparison | Antenna |