| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#7
January 3rd 05, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I meant this reply to Cecil, W5DXP.
John John Steffes wrote: Very clever design, Robert! Your system should provide gain at the higher operationg frquencies as a bonus. John KE0GG W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:36:31 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote: Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. One would think that converting from a balanced antenna to unbalanced feedline would be a primary benefit offered by a balun. I'm perfectly aware of most of the reasons for using a balun. I'm trying to uncover the motivation of the complainant. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Parallel balun problem with wire loop | Antenna | |||
| Adding a 2:1 balun to a multi-band dipole | Antenna | |||
| Horizontal loop - balun or no balun ? | Antenna | |||
| Balun Grounding Question ? | Antenna | |||
| Bricks effect in dipole resonance? Help! | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
