TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner
From: Arthur Trampler <atrampler@att.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Isn't one of the key distinctions of the Ten Tec 238/B/C that these are 
switched L networks, rather than T-networks, as I believe the Palstar is?
 
Some years back QST reviewed several external auto-tuners and with respect to 
efficiency, the Ten Tec 253 came out far ahead of most competitors, as did 
(surprising me) an MFJ tuner.  They both handily were measured as being far 
more efficient than the Palstar especially on the lower bands matching low-Z 
loads.
 
There is a common factor between the MFJ and the TT-253 (and 238), and that is 
that it is also an L network.  Most Palstars are T-matches, right?
 
So forgetting the questions/comments about baluns, and whether the lowest SWR 
is also the best match, and whether there may be multiple low-SWR tuning points 
with a T-match...
 
Is an L-Match inherently less lossy than a T-match under most circumstances 
(ceteris parabis)?
 
Thanks,
Art
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>