Have not followed the Bazooka discussion in its entirety since I feel it goes a
bit far OT. However one of the last postings raised a question in my mind due
to the reference to the Late Cbik with whom I had some interesting and
pleasurable email exchanges.
One item he mentioned that by using insulated wire alone one can get a large
reduction - up to 6dB - reduction in static. Perhaps this is one aspect that
plays a role.
I am using PA0FRI's S-match and like it very much. It gives me extra input
filtering and galvanic speration of the antenna and in my location /
environment it has really cut down in static and interference. Recetly I have
decided to replace all my PL259 - SO239 connectors with N connections. In this
process I was also looking at coax and in this process I came across the (far)
more expensive professional types of coax like LMR 400, LMR 195, RG 142, RG 223
etc.
Some of the marketing blurb was that these types of coax have less problems
with locally generated interference. Somewhere else one ham stated that he
preferred to have a remote ATU and have the antenna at least 20 meters away
from the home because of all the interference he got from all the modern day
electronic equipment in the home with its switched mode power supplies.
What I like to find out is have any of you experimented with the same antenna
and feed it with parrallel wire and having the ATU in the shack versus having a
remote ATU and feeding the ATU with high quality (double shielded) coax and how
the perception was of which solution has the lesser amount of interference?
Many thanks in advance, Marinus, ZL2ML.
_________________________________________________________________
Buy, rent, invest property online today.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eallrealestate%2Eco%2Enz%2Freview%2Fhome%2Dbuying%2Dinfo%2Ehtml%3Frsf%3Dmsnnz%5Ftextlink&_t=26000&_r=REA_NZ_tagline&_m=EXT
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|