On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:55:56 -0700, jimlux wrote:
>Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:36:40 -0700, Kevin Normoyle wrote:
>>
>>> We started this saying the baluns at balundesigns could be outdone.
I've
>>> not seen the one true answer that makes me believe that yet.
>>
>> One true answer? Gee, I've published measured data and showed
exactly what
>> I measured and how I measured it. Have you gotten that from any mfr
of any
>> balun or similar product?
>>
>>> What I think i see is a little bit of a cheat: tuning baluns so you
say
>>> they're "better" for restricted ranges within 3.7-30mhz?
>>
>> 3.5-30 MHz is hardly a restricted range -- it's all but one of the
HF
>> bands. How many hams have antennas that cover that much range? I
don't
>> have any.
>>
>>
>Jim,
>Speaking of widebands.. what about recommendations for chokes to use
>with an autotuner at the feedpoint/base. That *is* a broadband
>application.
That's an application where I think the bifilar THHN chokes would
really shine, both because of their wide bandwidth, and because the
tuner takes care of any mismatch that the THHN introduces.
>My practical experience has been that you need to choke
>both the feedline AND the power/control lines to the tuner (not
>together.. one choke for coax, one for power).
I agree. I'll need to address that this summer when I work out an
arrangement to load my grounded 120 ft tower on 160M. In addition to
the coax, there are control cables for both the rotor and the SteppIR
motors.
>And, probably, choke it at both ends.
That may depend on the installation. There's no downside to a second
choke at the other end.
73,
Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|