Ken Smith wrote:
If you then
put in the output device protection they didn't include, you end up with
the matching as I explained elsewhere.

SWR foldback is part of impedance matching?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Cecil Moore wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
If you then
put in the output device protection they didn't include, you end up with
the matching as I explained elsewhere.

SWR foldback is part of impedance matching?

Yes for the purposes of the OP's case it is. He is trying to use an
existing transmitter design and a hunk of wire. This seems to be the part
of my argument that people are missing. I suggested he use a matching
network to match the wire to the transmitter's output.

--
--
forging knowledge

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:56:47 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
If you then
put in the output device protection they didn't include, you end up with
the matching as I explained elsewhere.

SWR foldback is part of impedance matching?

It is in the sense that it improves the source match by trying to hold
the forward power constant regardless of load. Most SWR foldback
systems overreact but a good ALC system, what we called a "leveling
loop" in waveguide reflectometers back in the mid-20th century
certainly improve the source match.