TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution
From: Mike Bryce <prosolar@sssnet.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:50:34 -0400
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I quite aware that open line is generally considered lost less feed line. 

What threw me was the use of a 1:1 balun instead of a 4:1. 

That's the head scratcher. 

Mike wb8vge

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2013, at 9:32 PM, k6jek <k6jek@comcast.net> wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> You're matching the antenna system, the antenna and the feed line. You just 
> can't separate the two. When the antenna impedance at a particular frequency 
> is different from the feed line characteristic impedance, the impedance on 
> the line is different every place on the line.  You're matching whatever it 
> happens to be at the shack end of the feed line.
> 
> Losses are the reason to put the balun near the station instead of near the 
> antenna. Open wire line has much lower losses than coax under conditions of 
> very high SWR. That's the reason we put up with the stuff which is a royal 
> pain in the arse, just so we can have a ridiculous SWR and not care about it. 
> And very high SWR is exactly what we have at almost all frequencies when 
> using a doublet  as a multi-band antenna. The only reason we can get away 
> with such a thing is the low loss of open wire line. So you want to run that 
> stuff as far as you can before switching to coax. As long as you can is 
> ideally right into a balanced tuner, no balun at all.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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