Why an Antenna Tuner May Be A Waste of Money -by- Daniel A Grunberg
 

On 1/22/2011 3:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...

You are correct.




I commonly see one unit called both, such as this example:
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/3912

Regards,
JS

Why an Antenna Tuner May Be A Waste of Money -by- Daniel A Grunberg
 

On Jan 22, 12:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 1/22/2011 3:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...

You are correct.

I commonly see one unit called both, such as this example:http://www.eham..net/reviews/detail/3912

Regards,
JS

Some of the reviews praise the MFJ 956 for its LW and MW capabilities .

Why an Antenna Tuner May Be A Waste of Money -by- Daniel A Grunberg
 

On 01/22/2011 08:34 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

JS

MFJ makes two items that they describe specifically as preselectors,
the 1046 and 1048 - one "passive" and one powered. The passive has
fewer parts, but the instructions at the MFJ site blithely suggest
that both do a great job. They advertise the 956 as a tuner.

Tuner is used more generically here. A preselector is a type of tuner.

Why an Antenna Tuner May Be A Waste of Money -by- Daniel A Grunberg
 

On 01/22/2011 10:59 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:


I always thought that the word ''tuner" referred to tunable circuitry designed
to match a transmitter to an antenna whereas "preselector" is most often used
with lower power levels as is typical with antennas for receivers. They both
work as tunable bandpass circuits with the "tuners" generally having a lower Q.
My old Grove TUN-3 (preselector) has much sharper (selective) tuning whereas the
MFJ-949E (tuner) has a wider frequency range of bandpass.

If you have a 30 turn coil, a 365 mfd variable capacitor, and a couple
clip leads you can build a "L" matcher, that will tune just about
anything. Another junk pile solution...