RHF wrote:


Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.



"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:


Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.



"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.


"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.


"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

I would just call it following your interests.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

Exactly. Then the transmit energy ends up heating the coax to the
antenna and components in the tuner. sarcasm on As a bonus you get RFI
in the shack. Another bonus is high voltage at points in the coax to the
antenna where you could have a flashover condition. Sarcasm off

A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.

"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

I would just call it following your interests.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

Exactly. Then the transmit energy ends up heating the coax to the
antenna and components in the tuner. sarcasm on As a bonus you get RFI
in the shack. Another bonus is high voltage at points in the coax to the
antenna where you could have a flashover condition. Sarcasm off

A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.


He's right, too. My sloper is resonant but I still use a tuner to
protect the transceiver. I was going to use the Remote Autotuner but
don't need it. I get a decent match even on 160.

Dave wrote:

...
A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.


He's right, too. My sloper is resonant but I still use a tuner to
protect the transceiver. I was going to use the Remote Autotuner but
don't need it. I get a decent match even on 160.

Actually, Telemundo is just the same old idiot, pulling the same old
tricks and attempting to appear as a guru to those possessing even less
knowledge than himself ...

I never even commented on where the placement of the matchbox would be,
and, as everyone knows, anywhere along the line you can place it. The
best place would be between the coax (feedline) and the antenna--that
is, taking for granted that the match from your rig to the feedline is
perfect.

However, no matter where you place the matchbox (including up telemundos
butt), its' losses remain constant, and, it is a net loss to the system
.... and the poor antenna remains just as poor--its' faults having been
masked.

Next end-run please?

Regards,
JS

On Dec 28, 6:24*pm, Dave wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
*Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
*Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL

Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. *Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.

"Random" implies otherwise. *Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. *So I got a license to
transmit. *Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

I would just call it following your interests.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. *There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

Exactly. Then the transmit energy ends up heating the coax to the
antenna and components in the tuner. sarcasm on As a bonus you get RFI
in the shack. Another bonus is high voltage at points in the coax to the
antenna where you could have a flashover condition. Sarcasm off

A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.

- He's right, too. *My sloper is resonant but
- I still use a tuner to protect the transceiver.
-*I was going to use the Remote Autotuner but
- don't need it. *I get a decent match even on 160.

-IF- Your main objective is to protect the Transceiver
-then- a Tuner in the Radio-Shack will do that.
-however- If your main objective is to 'optimize' your
Transmitting Signal : Then a Tuner at the Antenna's
Feed-Point will do that better. ~ RHF