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.