Not “wrong”, just dated a bit in regards to WARC band operation.
The balanced link matchbox design could match just about anything. It was not
terribly lossy and it was easy to use.
I have used them with solid state radios and they work beautifully on the bands
for which they were intended - far better than the autotuners.
I did not intend to give the notion that it was perfect. However, for a
balanced line tuner, it was better than what is commercially available today,
IMHO.
Improvement is always welcome though…
Gary
> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:29 AM, - - <rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
>
> Sorry Gary but you're wrong about the Johnson V Matchbox.
>
> It was a long ways from being the best matchbox ever. It had a couple of
> deficiencies which back in the days of no WARC bands and tube radios with
> Pi-Networks, didn't make much difference.
>
> 25 years later its deficiencies were very apparent.
>
> On my web site I explain that in detail and show people how to modify their
> JV Matchbox to bring it up into the modern times.
>
> See:
> http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/viking-vs-annecke/
>
> <http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/viking-vs-annecke/>
>
>
> See:
> http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/j-viking-upgrade/
>
> <http://www.dj0ip.de/antenna-matchboxes/symmetrical-matchboxes/j-viking-upgrade/>
>
>
> Several people have successfully modified their JVM using my instructions and
> all are much happier campers now that the dificiencies have been fixed.
>
> 73
>
> Rick,DJ0IP
>
>
>
>
>
>> Gary J FollettDukes HiFi <dukeshifi@comcast.net> hat am 16. Juli 2016 um
>> 04:31 geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> The old EF Johnson Matchbox, both the 275 watt and the 1 KW version were
>> truly balanced output.
>>
>> That was the very best tuner design ever. The actual matching coil was the
>> balun.
>>
>> Virtually every other tuner uses an unbalanced tuning system and then uses a
>> BALUN too couple to balanced feed lines. Therefore, no BALUN is, of course,
>> needed at the antenna.
>>
>> I used 600 ohm balanced line once to feed a cubical quad (Gem quad) and it
>> worked extremely well.
>>
>> Oh, I too always wonder why folks fret so much when they only get 90 watts
>> output instead of 100. no one anywhere can hear the difference between 90
>> and 100 watts, not even in a head-to-head shout down. Turn it down to 50
>> watts, use half the electricity and the listener will barely tell the
>> difference on the other end.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> W0DVN
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Jim Allen <jim.allen@longhornband.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I had one of those, not at 60', about half that. CC&Rs and all that.
>>>
>>> What is a "well designed truly balanced antenna tuner?" From what I've
>>> read, there aren't many. I have an MFJ 974HB. There is the Palstar whatever
>>> the latest model nomenclature is. Rick has the whole run down on his
>>> extensive website.
>>>
>>> What is good at lower heights?
>>>
>>> 73 de W6OGC Jim Allen
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>> >> On Jul 15, 2016, at 17:28, Scott Harwood <scotthsr@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:>>
>> >> Well, for 80 - 10 meters, how about a 135 foot wire dipole up about 60
>> >> feet fed with 600 ohm open wire line into a well designed truly balanced
>> >> antenna tuner located right at the transceiver, as one example?
>> >>
>> >> Scott K4VWK
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Jim Allen <jim.allen@longhornband.net>
>> >>> Sent: Jul 15, 2016 5:53 PM
>> >>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group
>> >>>
>> >>> What is "a low-loss matching and feed system into an efficient antenna?"
>> >>>
>> >>> This is the "Holy Grail" of amateur radio, if we can find it.
>> >>>
>> >>> 73 de W6OGC Jim Allen
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from my iPad
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 16:05, cegtv1 via TenTec <tentec@contesting.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> a low-loss matching and feed system into an efficient antenna
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|