TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner
From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman@spacetech.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:15:53 -0400
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I remember the reviews.  I think you are correct.

But if you are going to want me to translate latin after all these 
years...god help us all !!  LOL   LOL

73


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arthur Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Palstar tuner


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


_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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