KAT500 Remote Version
Locked
 
|
I see the KAT500 (indoor) version is set to ship Oct 1-15 timeframe. Tech info and shipping target date for remote version of KAT500 would be appreciated.
73 de KK7EL Bruce
|
|
|
Did they actually say they were going to do a remote version? That's
not trivial like put it in a sealed box and you're done. People have asked about it, but I don't recall them saying it was on the list. 73, Guy. On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Bruce Hammond <[hidden email]> wrote: > I see the KAT500 (indoor) version is set to ship Oct 1-15 timeframe. Tech > info and shipping target date for remote version of KAT500 would be > appreciated. > > > > ----- > 73 de KK7EL Bruce > -- > View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KAT500-Remote-Version-tp7563017.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Guy, it was announced June 16, 2010 by Wayne, see link below:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Elecraft-KAT500-was-quot-Auto-Tuner-quot-td5188575.html I sure hope they do it and soon. 
73 de KK7EL Bruce
|
Re: KAT500 Remote Version
|
|
I will note that at least one thing stated below is no longer the case-
the size. And the different form factor may make a remote model more difficult. But I'm hoping that will not be a problem. 73, doug >>In case anyone was wondering: We are definitely planning to ship a >> new >>high-power autotuner next year. It will be an ideal companion tuner >>for the KPA500 and other amplifiers in the 500-600 W class (full >>rating on 160-6 m). It will be offered in both a desktop model (P3 >>size) and a remote model for use at the antenna. Both will feature >>latching relays to minimize operating current. It will support >> various >>industry-standard control protocols. >>73, >>Wayne & Eric On 09/20/12 10:52, Bruce Hammond wrote: > Guy, it was announced June 16, 2010 by Wayne, see link below: > > http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Elecraft-KAT500-was-quot-Auto-Tuner-quot-td5188575.html > > I sure hope they do it and soon. > > > > ----- > 73 de KK7EL Bruce > -- > View this message in context: > > http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KAT500-Remote-Version-tp7563017p7563022.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
Administrator
|
It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control
firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to see what we can do to facilitate it. 73, Wayne N6KR ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Thanks Wayne! I look forward to seeing what comes out of it.
73 de KK7EL Bruce On 09/20/2012 12:12, wayne burdick [via
Elecraft] wrote:
It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control
73 de KK7EL Bruce
|
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
I have been trying to decide between the KAT500... and a remote tuner at
the base of my 30' vertical. I have measured the SWR on each band, at the shack end of my 125' of LMR600. If I take that length, frequency and SWR information and plug it into the chart for SWR loss of LMR600, I can see what my loss is on each band... but I am not sure that tells the entire story. Intuitively it seems that I want the ATU as close to the antenna as possible. I could shorten my feedline to about 65'. I could mount an ATU just inside my basement at about 30' from the antenna (and avoid a weatherproof box - as long as the ATU does not need to be seen or touched), or I could mount it at the base of the antenna, but that would be very much more challenging. Is the SWR loss, based on my cable type, length & frequency all I need consider, or am I missing something? Some people have told me that I need consider nothing else... others have said that "tuner loss" is critical, and that will be greater than the line loss. That sounds bogus to me, but I really don't know. I also know that the ATU in my K3 can make the rig very happy on 80 through 6 with this antenna and 125' of cable... but I don't know if matching the antenna at the end of 1', 30' or 65' will be harder, or easier. It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to use it, and can find no instructions for that program. Any and all help will be appreciated. Dave - K9FN On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote: > It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control > firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done > any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, > we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to > see what we can do to facilitate it. > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
This web page may be of help to understand TLW:
http://www.antennex.com/shack/Dec04/tlnw.htm 73 de Dick, K6KR -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Bunte Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:59 PM To: Wayne Burdick Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAT500 Remote Version I have been trying to decide between the KAT500... and a remote tuner at the base of my 30' vertical. I have measured the SWR on each band, at the shack end of my 125' of LMR600. If I take that length, frequency and SWR information and plug it into the chart for SWR loss of LMR600, I can see what my loss is on each band... but I am not sure that tells the entire story. Intuitively it seems that I want the ATU as close to the antenna as possible. I could shorten my feedline to about 65'. I could mount an ATU just inside my basement at about 30' from the antenna (and avoid a weatherproof box - as long as the ATU does not need to be seen or touched), or I could mount it at the base of the antenna, but that would be very much more challenging. Is the SWR loss, based on my cable type, length & frequency all I need consider, or am I missing something? Some people have told me that I need consider nothing else... others have said that "tuner loss" is critical, and that will be greater than the line loss. That sounds bogus to me, but I really don't know. I also know that the ATU in my K3 can make the rig very happy on 80 through 6 with this antenna and 125' of cable... but I don't know if matching the antenna at the end of 1', 30' or 65' will be harder, or easier. It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to use it, and can find no instructions for that program. Any and all help will be appreciated. Dave - K9FN On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote: > It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control > firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done > any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, > we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to > see what we can do to facilitate it. > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email > list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Bunte
David,
Those who have mentioned "tuner loss" may or may not be correct - it all depends on the tuner. If the tuner is of the "T match" variety, it will have multiple points where it can show a match, but many of those "matched" points will result in high circulating currents in the tuner and high losses. Elecraft tuners are "L-match" tuners, and do not suffer from those false tuning points - it will either match the load or it will fail. You LMR600 coax is very low loss and at frequencies below 30 MHz. I would offer that a 100 foot run could have an SWR as high as 5:1 and the loss would be acceptable. If your coax run is longer than that, or your SWR is higher, then, yes, I would feel more comfortable with a remote antenna tuner to keep the SWR on the coax down to a reasonable level. 73, Don W3FPR On 9/20/2012 3:59 PM, David Bunte wrote: > I have been trying to decide between the KAT500... and a remote tuner at > the base of my 30' vertical. I have measured the SWR on each band, at the > shack end of my 125' of LMR600. If I take that length, frequency and SWR > information and plug it into the chart for SWR loss of LMR600, I can see > what my loss is on each band... but I am not sure that tells the entire > story. > > Intuitively it seems that I want the ATU as close to the antenna as > possible. I could shorten my feedline to about 65'. I could mount an ATU > just inside my basement at about 30' from the antenna (and avoid a > weatherproof box - as long as the ATU does not need to be seen or touched), > or I could mount it at the base of the antenna, but that would be very much > more challenging. > > Is the SWR loss, based on my cable type, length & frequency all I need > consider, or am I missing something? > > Some people have told me that I need consider nothing else... others have > said that "tuner loss" is critical, and that will be greater than the line > loss. That sounds bogus to me, but I really don't know. > > I also know that the ATU in my K3 can make the rig very happy on 80 through > 6 with this antenna and 125' of cable... but I don't know if matching the > antenna at the end of 1', 30' or 65' will be harder, or easier. > > It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the > ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to > use it, and can find no instructions for that program. > > Any and all help will be appreciated. > > Dave - K9FN > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control >> firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done >> any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, >> we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to >> see what we can do to facilitate it. >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[hidden email] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Bunte
David,
It's worth trying to figure out TLW. Steps are basically this for coax loss: 1) Select coax type 2) Input length 3) Input frequency. The fun begins when one looks at the loss of the coax for various loads. Input 50 ohms first. That will give you the coax loss when matched. Then input other values and you will see total loss including the mismatch. Here are some examples using 125' of LMR600 20M matched .33 db 20M 10 ohms .805 db 20M 250 ohms .8 db 20M 500 ohms 1.43 db 10M matched .506 db 10M 10 ohms 1.19 db 10M 250 ohm 1.15 db 10M 500 ohms 2.0 db I wouldn't want to put a hacksaw to that beautiful (and expensive) coax to "improve things". Fittings aren't cheap either. Cutting it in half would pick up a max of 1 db in the above cases. In most cases it is less than 0.5 db. 1db is the minimum discernible signal level change a human can detect. TLW can do a lot more than the above. 73 de Brian/K3KO On 9/20/2012 19:59, David Bunte wrote: > I have been trying to decide between the KAT500... and a remote tuner at > the base of my 30' vertical. I have measured the SWR on each band, at the > shack end of my 125' of LMR600. If I take that length, frequency and SWR > information and plug it into the chart for SWR loss of LMR600, I can see > what my loss is on each band... but I am not sure that tells the entire > story. > > Intuitively it seems that I want the ATU as close to the antenna as > possible. I could shorten my feedline to about 65'. I could mount an ATU > just inside my basement at about 30' from the antenna (and avoid a > weatherproof box - as long as the ATU does not need to be seen or touched), > or I could mount it at the base of the antenna, but that would be very much > more challenging. > > Is the SWR loss, based on my cable type, length& frequency all I need > consider, or am I missing something? > > Some people have told me that I need consider nothing else... others have > said that "tuner loss" is critical, and that will be greater than the line > loss. That sounds bogus to me, but I really don't know. > > I also know that the ATU in my K3 can make the rig very happy on 80 through > 6 with this antenna and 125' of cable... but I don't know if matching the > antenna at the end of 1', 30' or 65' will be harder, or easier. > > It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the > ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to > use it, and can find no instructions for that program. > > Any and all help will be appreciated. > > Dave - K9FN > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Wayne Burdick<[hidden email]> wrote: > >> It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control >> firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done >> any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, >> we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to >> see what we can do to facilitate it. >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[hidden email] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5281 - Release Date: 09/20/12 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5281 - Release Date: 09/20/12 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Hammond
Hi,
I am one of those customers interested in outdoors, remote location of the KAT500. I have a suspicion that I may be too late in the ordering queue (a day and a half or so after orders opened) that I may not be able do much experimentation before winter weather sets in, but one can always hope. One of the challenges will be to communicate with it over a distance of about 100' and I expect I have to use an Ethernet serial server that I already possess. AB2TC - Knut
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4
What Don says is true as far as it goes. The L-network tuner has only one solution, but it isn't necessarily a good one.
Way back in 1998 when correspondence was via typewriter and snail mail, I went around with Dean Straw, N6BV, then Editor of the ARRL Antenna Book, about tuner losses. This was in conjunction with the editing of my paper, "Balanced Transmission Lines in Current Amateur Practice" that appeared in the Sixth Edition of the ARRL Antenna Compendium. Remarkably (coincidence I'm sure ;) it wasn't long before favored authors were contributing articles to QST about how to measure tuner losses and TLW was written. Tuner and line losses really do matter. Wes N7WS --- On Thu, 9/20/12, Don Wilhelm <[hidden email]> wrote: David, Those who have mentioned "tuner loss" may or may not be correct - it all depends on the tuner. If the tuner is of the "T match" variety, it will have multiple points where it can show a match, but many of those "matched" points will result in high circulating currents in the tuner and high losses. Elecraft tuners are "L-match" tuners, and do not suffer from those false tuning points - it will either match the load or it will fail. You LMR600 coax is very low loss and at frequencies below 30 MHz. I would offer that a 100 foot run could have an SWR as high as 5:1 and the loss would be acceptable. If your coax run is longer than that, or your SWR is higher, then, yes, I would feel more comfortable with a remote antenna tuner to keep the SWR on the coax down to a reasonable level. 73, Don W3FPR On 9/20/2012 3:59 PM, David Bunte wrote: > I have been trying to decide between the KAT500... and a remote tuner at > the base of my 30' vertical. I have measured the SWR on each band, at the > shack end of my 125' of LMR600. If I take that length, frequency and SWR > information and plug it into the chart for SWR loss of LMR600, I can see > what my loss is on each band... but I am not sure that tells the entire > story. > > Intuitively it seems that I want the ATU as close to the antenna as > possible. I could shorten my feedline to about 65'. I could mount an ATU > just inside my basement at about 30' from the antenna (and avoid a > weatherproof box - as long as the ATU does not need to be seen or touched), > or I could mount it at the base of the antenna, but that would be very much > more challenging. > > Is the SWR loss, based on my cable type, length & frequency all I need > consider, or am I missing something? > > Some people have told me that I need consider nothing else... others have > said that "tuner loss" is critical, and that will be greater than the line > loss. That sounds bogus to me, but I really don't know. > > I also know that the ATU in my K3 can make the rig very happy on 80 through > 6 with this antenna and 125' of cable... but I don't know if matching the > antenna at the end of 1', 30' or 65' will be harder, or easier. > > It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the > ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to > use it, and can find no instructions for that program. > > Any and all help will be appreciated. > > Dave - K9FN > > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: KAT500 Remote Version
|
|
In reply to this post by wayne burdick
Hi Wayne,
An important consideration IMHO when designing a remote AMU (ATU), is the noise that it makes when tuning. Neighbours, for some strange reason, don't like to be awakend by the sound of relays nor tuning motors when they are sleeping :-) 73, Geoff LX2AO On September 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control > firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done > any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, > we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to > see what we can do to facilitate it. > > 73, > Wayne > N6KR ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Indeed, the sole reason that I do not use my screwdriver vertical, it would
wake the dead. David G3UNA > Hi Wayne, > > An important consideration IMHO when designing a remote AMU (ATU), is the > noise that it makes when tuning. Neighbours, for some strange reason, > don't > like to be awakend by the sound of relays nor tuning motors when they are > sleeping :-) > > 73, > > Geoff > LX2AO > > > On September 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > > >> It may be possible to remote the KAT500 with additional control >> firmware and an appropriate weather-proof enclosure. We haven't done >> any testing of this idea yet, but once we start shipping KAT500s, >> we'll work with a few customers who want to experiment with this to >> see what we can do to facilitate it. >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by n7ws
Hi,
That's not true. The L network's only solution is the lowest Q possible, meaning it will have the lowest tuner loss possible and the widest bandwidth. And if the capacitor and inductor steps are made small enough, a 1.0:1 solution is always possible. The fact that many tuners give up once the SWR is below 2.0 or 1.5 is merely a shortcoming in their tuning algorithms. I am having high hopes for the KAT500. Is anything known on how many bits of L and C resolution is there? AB2TC - Knut
|
Re: KAT500 Remote Version
|
|
In reply to this post by David Bunte
Dave,
I always use TL Details whicj can be downloaded here at wbsite of AC6LA : http://www.ac6la.com/tldetails.html It is easy to use. Choose the cable that you are using, set the frequency, set the line length and set an estiimate of the impedance at the load. If you donot know that and your swr meter says 1:3, then set R tot 150. This makes the program calculate with SWR 3 Then you can read the loss and some other nice things from this very nice little tool. It has been on my computers for a very long time, and has become a standard program for me to install on my computer. 73 Arie PA3A Op 20-9-2012 21:59, David Bunte schreef: > > It was suggested that the TLW program by N6BV, that is packaged with the > ARRL Antenna Book would help, but I have not been able to figure out how to > use it, and can find no instructions for that program. > > Any and all help will be appreciated. > > Dave - K9FN > > > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by ab2tc
Semantics. When I say, "It's not necessarily a good one", I mean that just because a match is achieved, it doesn't mean that one should accept the situation. Even though the L-network offers the lowest loss (it doesn't always) it doesn't mean it is "low loss", in fact the loss can be quite high. A simple change in transmission line length might be beneficial.
I can demonstrate that two L-networks in series, using the same component unloaded Qs, can offer (very) slightly lower loss that a single L-network doing the same transformation. It's often assumed, incorrectly, that the fewer components, the better. Not true. --- On Thu, 9/20/12, ab2tc <[hidden email]> wrote: From: ab2tc <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAT500 Remote Version To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, September 20, 2012, 4:58 PM Hi, That's not true. The L network's only solution is the lowest Q possible, meaning it will have the lowest tuner loss possible and the widest bandwidth. And if the capacitor and inductor steps are made small enough, a 1.0:1 solution is always possible. The fact that many tuners give up once the SWR is below 2.0 or 1.5 is merely a shortcoming in their tuning algorithms. I am having high hopes for the KAT500. Is anything known on how many bits of L and C resolution is there? AB2TC - Knut Wes Stewart wrote > What Don says is true as far as it goes. The L-network tuner has only one > solution, but it isn't necessarily a good one. > > Way back in 1998 when correspondence was via typewriter and snail mail, I > went around with Dean Straw, N6BV, then Editor of the ARRL Antenna Book, > about tuner losses. This was in conjunction with the editing of my paper, > "Balanced Transmission Lines in Current Amateur Practice" that appeared in > the Sixth Edition of the ARRL Antenna Compendium. > > Remarkably (coincidence I'm sure ;) it wasn't long before favored authors > were contributing articles to QST about how to measure tuner losses and > TLW was written. > > Tuner and line losses really do matter. > > Wes N7WS ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [QRO]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |