[AMRadio] Re: new antenna and matchbox a bust.

Geoff/W5OMR ars.w5omr at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 22:59:14 EST 2007

I said:

>> 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?

73, etc

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 17 Dec 2017.