|[AMRadio] Re: new antenna and matchbox a bust.|
ars.w5omr at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 22:59:14 EST 2007
>> I don't think you're understanding what Brett is doing, Craig...
John attempted patronization mixed with sarcasm (and failed) then said
something to the effect of:
> might want to more closely re-read the original post. Somewhere in
> the middle of this grand affair, Brett attaches a length of (homemade)
> 'ladderline' to the end of the two coaxial cables - the ladderline
> then proceeds to the feedpoint of the antenna. The "balanced coax"
> does not.
Now, see.. -that- part, I never got. I dunno if I just happened to skim
over it, or just didn't see it to read it. *I* thought he was running
thetwo runs of coax, side-by-side all the way from the tuner output to
the antenna. At least, that's what makes sense, and Brett's always
exhibited 'sensibility' since I've been reading his missives.
> I'm looking at the coax as a specific set of impedances distributed
> along the length, with possible effects from any interaction between
> them, especially at the E and H nodes... Right now, as you say, it's
> 'speculation' - but I've found some interesting things to explore, and
> I intend to trek that trail. Soon. Really soon...
Let us know what you come up with.
> In closing I offer you the example of a coax balun... it's just a
> run of coax - so what if it's coiled in a solenoid? Its still coax....
Wire is wire, but if you -coil- it, you create something else. The
electrical properties of the -wire- are the same. What you've created
is a different matter.
In Brett's case, if it were two runs of copper wire inside ONE shield,
do you think -that- would be better?
What's the difference?
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 17 Oct 2017.