My 160m doublet up at 80 feet above ground works on all bands via my Dentron Super Tuner. Ladder line from doublet down to 4:1 current balun, then 120 feet of coax to the house. I've worked all zones, and am near 300 DXCC Mixed. This is good information that all radio hobbyists should understand.
Here is another quote from the ARRL Antenna Handbook Chapter 2 - "Please recognize that an antenna need not be resonant in order to be an effective radiator. There is in fact nothing magic about having a resonant antenna, provided of course that you can devise some efficient means to feed the antenna. Many amateurs use non-resonant (even random-length) antennas fed with open-wire transmission lines and antenna tuners. They radiate signals just as well as those using coaxial cable and resonant antennas, and as a bonus they usually can use these antenna systems on multiple frequency bands." My belief with hams gravitating to resonance is, that is what the training pushes for. The powers to be don't want new hams frustrated by trying to build non resonant with ATU's which as those who have experience know, can be temperamental. Therefore IMHO hams either build or buy resonant antennas and may not branch out into experimenting in non resonance. My 2¢
You are the man Mark! I've been preaching these same words to my ham friends over the years and only a small percentage of them get it. They either try to argue or they just can't wrap their heads around the tuner tuning the entire system...feedline and all vs tuning the antenna itself.
I think you're going to upset a few well established UA-cam channels, like HamRadioConcepts, TheSmokinape, and a few more. They are pushing the myths that you are debunking, great work.
I’m not really sure he is debunking myths. What he is doing is called appealing to authority and not demonstrably explaining anything. I really like the part where he explains removing the code requirement as the reason for the state of ham radio when he himself said Maxwell opened everyone’s eyes in the 70s (and the “myth” persisted) when there was a code requirement.
Thank you for your candid demeanor. I really appreciate straight talk. I’m a new HAM, only a month old, and want real information so I can make the proper decisions when purchasing and implementing my rid.
We need a question on the test so prospective hams will be required to learn that antenna tuners DO tune the antenna. Retired broadcast engineer here. -- N3TS
That would be a good idea, the info is there in the training manuals so a question or two wouldn't be out of context, I really can't understand why there's so much controversy when the info is out there ,maybe the misunderstanding of what and where the conjugate match occurs needs to be emphasised more
I make 600ohm doublets. I'm NEVER going back to a resonant wire antenna. It's over 200' long and still works FANTASTIC on 10m. In fact it gets lots of gain.
Same here! While I DO have an EFHW as a backup, my "Sunday go to meeting" antenna is a long, linear loaded doublet fed with 600 ohm ladder line. I'm never going back!! LOL!! de W5ODP 😎
Yep. A 134' Doublet antenna here that I've worked the world with. I put it up right after I got my General ticket in 2017, and have used it with great success since!
Good video again. Keep at it dispelling the myths! I think many get confused by the fact that the antenna tuner does not reduce the SWR on the coax to 1:1 but still tunes the antenna to resonance. Placed at the transmitter it does not reduce line losses. Placed at the antenna it does reduce line losses. With good coax and small matched losses the difference is negligible.
YOUNG MAN KEEPUM UP ON THEIR TOWERS , WAIT A MINUTE MOST OF THEM ON UTUBE DON’T HAVE A TOWER . ASK ONE ABOUT A BEVERAGE THEY SAY DO YOU WANT A GLASS OR BOTTLE .. Many types of antennas, I have been building antennas for years still learning , that is best part of antenna building, very proud to say my eleven year old son is on his third 10 meter and will not need a tuner , 👍😎. 👋
Thanks for a useful presentation that brings the discussion back towards reality. Of course, your analysis really only applies exactly to lossless networks, (tuner and feedline ). When loss is introduced, the conjugate match theorem begins to fail. For open wire or ladder line and a properly designed and adjusted tuner, the loss can be a dB or less and the match between the antenna and the complex Z looking into the coax is quite good. For a coax feedline with 3 dB loss and a badly adjusted tuner, the total loss can easily be 6 dB or more. In that case, the antenna is only partly matched by the tuner. But for a tuner to provide NO improvement in the match at the antenna/feedline interface the tuner/feedline loss would have to be infinite. Thus a tuner will ALWAYS at least partially tune the antenna. This is where the myth is totally wrong, when it says that a "transmatch" cannnot tune the antenna. A transmatch at the transmitter cannot change the mismatch between the antenna and the Zo of the coax, but it can and does make the Z looking down the coax closer to what the antenna would need for a conjugate match. A Smith chart program that includes provision for lossy lines will clearly show all of this, and for "Smithophobes" the program TLW,, which is included in the ARRL antenna book will also show it and is easy to use.
This is a true and very useful comment. A perfect conjugate match can only exist in a lossless system. In a lossy system it should be close enough to be useful. In the real world component tolerances are, at best, +/- 5%. The variations in ground impedance at a location can vary by 20% or more depending upon whether or not they are dry, wet, frozen, intertidal salt water, etc. Nothing's perfect.
Yup! I'm running a 42 ft end fed rand wire, near vertical on my sailboat. I'm working the world with 100w. The tuner is remote, located at the feed point so no coax loss due to high swr. I can tune 160 to 6 m with a flat match. Best performance is 40 to 10 m (KD6XU)
Sounds like fun but you perhaps didn't need a remote tuner especially since a sailboat feed line can't be very long and losses even with higher SWR's would be minimal.
More folks should read one of John D Kraus's antenna books. He makes the point that the *ideal* antenna is a combined transmission line transformer and EM wave transducer that seamlessly transforms the feedline's Zo impedance to the natural impedance of free space (~377 ohms) where the EM wave is emitted or received. When viewed in this manner, it's fairly easy to see how one may consider the combination of a less-than-ideal feedline, matching network and antenna combination as being a *system* for EM wave transmission and reception; i.e., an *antenna system*. (Apologies to JDK's ghost for my partial and simplified summation of his detailed work.)
Any chance you could make a comprehensive walkthrough video on the nature of reflections? I am reading Maxwell's "Another Look at Reflections" article and without any physics and engineering background, I am having a real hard time wrapping my mind around this. I will finish it and re-read it until I get it. Intuitively, I adhere to Walt Maxwell's writings. Especially, now that I've made more contacts with SWR values 1.5 to 1.9 :1 than I made with 1.1:1 However, I just want to understand the true nature of transmission line mechanics and power delivery. And I couldn't find anybody else explaining Maxwell's work on YT. Most of the videos on the subject invariably default to things like heat dissipation, power loss, ATUs just fooling radios, SWR kills antenna efficiency...I mean, I'd rather learn from someone, who's work went into space , someone who had government resources for experimentation and studying the subject at its deepest level, than UA-cam "experts'' many of whom simply turned to peddlers of various radio products.
I'll see what I can do. In the meantime make sure you have seen this: ua-cam.com/video/Xz73tkDOZDw/v-deo.html. Your observations about a lack of good information on what really happens in a transmission line is correct. Maxwell himself said that. And it is difficult to wrap your head around but keep at it and you will get it.
Many many years ago I was taught by my elmer, that you just have to have open wire or twin lead with an antenna tuner and coax was a big no no. Then I tested it myself and the coax worked just fine. Today you can google some online cable loss calculator and see that you get only a couple of db loss if you have a long cable. 73! Eeli from the OH
Hi. Do you have "magic" length for the antenna that would be long enough to catch say 1/2, 1/4, and maybe 1/8 waves of many bands? For example an end fed that can do like 80/40/20 meters with a tuner but still is long enough? Thank you
Howdy. I am with You. I would like to quote Dave Casler. An antenna tuner tunes the system comprising the antenna, the feed line, the tuner and the environment. If someone can construct a tuner that tunes a two meter whip on 40 meters he is a true wizard. The voltages would be enormous most certainly arcing any conventional varicap. But yes. If a super voltage capacitor can be built then technically Yes. It would radiate almost full power. The setup would be dangerous. One would have to operate that tuner by remote control servos from a distance of at least 100 feet. I believe many do not undestand that the reflected power gets back reflected again at the tuner. There are many generations of ping-ponged waves at the tuner output. They interact along the transimission line. The interaction produces the conjugate impedance to the antenna impedance, at the antenna input. So far so good for an unmodulated carrier only. However, when modulation is applied the scenario changes. The modulation causes the original wave and the re-reflected waves carrying different information. Purely technically this produces distortion. But in reality this has no meaning to the intelligibility of reception. Regards.
measure twice cut once. sounds like it's better to be to long. if i got this right the tuner can shorten the antenna but not make it longer for certain bands?
You say you can't change the length of a antenna but yet your tuner does this for you. If your antenna is too long it acts inductive so your add more capacity to make it electrical shorter. If your antenna is too short it acts capacitive so you add more induction to make it longer. That is what your antenna tuner is doing. And resonant does not mean it is 50 Ohms. Resonant means that induction and capacitor cancel each other out. A dipole fed in the middle has an impedance of about 72 Ohms (not 50 ohms 1:1 on your 50 Ohms cable). But fed at the end it becomes a EFHW and that is certainly not low in impedance.
Then why would I need an antenna for each hf frequency band. I’ll just put up a non resonant dipole that fits my back yard and put an antenna tuner next to my transmitter.
Exactly. Make sure it's long enough, a half wave, for the lowest frequency you plan to use. Short antennas don't work nearly as well as a full size antenna.
It tunes the entire antenna system. They know code but that is all they know. 97ft of wire, inverted V, 9:1 balun easily tunes 160m through 6m on ft991a internal tuner
You're correct but you're glossing over some details that are important to understand. Yes, the tuner is tuning both sides but as it adds opposing reactance, that implies reactive current must also be "sloshing" back and forth in the coax between the tuner and the antenna - eg transmission losses will go up for both TX and RX. That current sloshing back and forth is very real with every slosh some percentage is lost to the coax. This can be mitigated with a tuner mounted close to the antenna or using ladder line which has a lot lower loss. And to the point I think you're really trying to make, an antenna that requires a tuner is not inherently bad! It's practical and will totally get you on the bands. But since we're on the topic of myths it's worth thinking through exactly why this is not ideal. As the frequency of interest gets farther from the antennas natural resonance, the reactance needed to tune the system goes up, eg losses go up. Meanwhile radiation resistance is dropping (think of Rr as how much of each current slosh is being radiated out). You're losing efficiency from both ends. This can still work though, and that's pretty much what a magnetic loop is - just a very short folded dipole. But the reactive current is significant and the balancing reactance (C) is right next to the element to minimize losses. And we should also keep in mind that all this talk of tuning a fixed size antenna is a separate issue from how is the radiation pattern being affected. As you mentioned some antennas use this technique to change their radiation pattern and get more energy focused towards the horizon. It's not always easy with electromagnetics but try to think about the fundamentals, what is actually happening and it helps to get a better picture of what's going on and how it all interacts. There is no free lunch in engineering, everything is a tradeoff. The challenge (fun) is making the tradeoffs that are most acceptable for your particular situation.
How about doing something about the myths! Like correcting the AARL books that mis inform Hams . Also don’t put anyone down about not knowing Code , CW is dying on the vine. I would love to see some of the Ham snobs admit they got started with CB! JohnBoyUtah KJ7TBR😎🇺🇸📡🎙
Without doubt, ARRL books are not perfect; but they are NOT tomes of misinformation. I see no evidence of CW (Morse Code) dying. If anything, it's becoming more popular -- especially among the QRP POTA and SOTA crowd.
A tuner does not tune the antenna if it's at the xmtr ...it only tunes the antenna if it is at the antenna. My decades of AM directional arrays using Maxwell's formula confirms that..the transmission line is NOT the antenna..
Well Maxwell disagrees with you. He says the tuner, tunes the antenna by creating a conjugate match at the feed point and he has done the math and lab work to prove it.
@@NoMoreRadioMyths Quite so, and the end result of using a tuner is that when losses are small, the tuner causes the antenna to see an impedance that more nearly matches its complex Z than it would if the tuner were not being used. In that way it "makes the antenna happy". So saying that a tuner "only makes the transmitter happy" is clearly a myth. The "tuner doesn't tune the antenna" may or may not be a myth, depending on one's definitions. But it can be "mythleading". (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun) By tuning the whole system, within the limits imposed by losses, the tuner makes everyone happy. 🙂When there are losses, the antenna is "happier" but not totally happy. When the losses are bad in either the tuner or the feedline, the operator wont be very happy, even if the tuner reduces the SWR to 1:1.
My 160m doublet up at 80 feet above ground works on all bands via my Dentron Super Tuner. Ladder line from doublet down to 4:1 current balun, then 120 feet of coax to the house. I've worked all zones, and am near 300 DXCC Mixed. This is good information that all radio hobbyists should understand.
Excellent! You are going to upset a few with this one 👍
Here is another quote from the ARRL Antenna Handbook Chapter 2 - "Please recognize that an antenna need not be resonant in order to be an effective radiator. There is in fact nothing magic about having a resonant antenna, provided of course that you can devise some efficient means to feed the antenna. Many amateurs use non-resonant (even random-length) antennas fed with open-wire transmission lines and antenna tuners. They radiate signals just as well as those using coaxial cable and resonant antennas, and as a bonus they usually can use these antenna systems on multiple frequency bands." My belief with hams gravitating to resonance is, that is what the training pushes for. The powers to be don't want new hams frustrated by trying to build non resonant with ATU's which as those who have experience know, can be temperamental. Therefore IMHO hams either build or buy resonant antennas and may not branch out into experimenting in non resonance. My 2¢
You are the man Mark! I've been preaching these same words to my ham friends over the years and only a small percentage of them get it. They either try to argue or they just can't wrap their heads around the tuner tuning the entire system...feedline and all vs tuning the antenna itself.
I think you're going to upset a few well established UA-cam channels, like HamRadioConcepts, TheSmokinape, and a few more. They are pushing the myths that you are debunking, great work.
I’m not really sure he is debunking myths. What he is doing is called appealing to authority and not demonstrably explaining anything. I really like the part where he explains removing the code requirement as the reason for the state of ham radio when he himself said Maxwell opened everyone’s eyes in the 70s (and the “myth” persisted) when there was a code requirement.
@thesmokinape What?
@@NoMoreRadioMyths what what?
@@TheSmokinApe I didn't like the "no code" comment either...
He didn't say removing code created the state ham radio is in. Strange that this video got you so upset that you would put words in his mouth.
Thank you for your candid demeanor. I really appreciate straight talk. I’m a new HAM, only a month old, and want real information so I can make the proper decisions when purchasing and implementing my rid.
We need a question on the test so prospective hams will be required to learn that antenna tuners DO tune the antenna. Retired broadcast engineer here. -- N3TS
That would be a good idea, the info is there in the training manuals so a question or two wouldn't be out of context, I really can't understand why there's so much controversy when the info is out there ,maybe the misunderstanding of what and where the conjugate match occurs needs to be emphasised more
I make 600ohm doublets. I'm NEVER going back to a resonant wire antenna. It's over 200' long and still works FANTASTIC on 10m. In fact it gets lots of gain.
Yep and didn't cost a fortune!
@@NoMoreRadioMyths 40$ in 3d printed parts and wire.
I've been running 80 meter doublets for over 20 years now. A great antenna! I've worked the world on this simple antenna.
Same here! While I DO have an EFHW as a backup, my "Sunday go to meeting" antenna is a long, linear loaded doublet fed with 600 ohm ladder line. I'm never going back!! LOL!! de W5ODP 😎
Yep. A 134' Doublet antenna here that I've worked the world with. I put it up right after I got my General ticket in 2017, and have used it with great success since!
Good video again. Keep at it dispelling the myths! I think many get confused by the fact that the antenna tuner does not reduce the SWR on the coax to 1:1 but still tunes the antenna to resonance. Placed at the transmitter it does not reduce line losses. Placed at the antenna it does reduce line losses. With good coax and small matched losses the difference is negligible.
Good point!
YOUNG MAN KEEPUM UP ON THEIR TOWERS , WAIT A MINUTE MOST OF THEM ON UTUBE DON’T HAVE A TOWER . ASK ONE ABOUT A BEVERAGE THEY SAY DO YOU WANT A GLASS OR BOTTLE .. Many types of antennas, I have been building antennas for years still learning , that is best part of antenna building, very proud to say my eleven year old son is on his third 10 meter and will not need a tuner , 👍😎. 👋
Well, okay. Mind officially blown. Thanks for educating this (somewhat) newer ham.
Your videos explain why I can have a 44' random wire, with a 9:1 balun and do fine 40-10 meters, using the built in transmatch in my radio. TNX!
Thanks for a useful presentation that brings the discussion back towards reality. Of course, your analysis really only applies exactly to lossless networks, (tuner and feedline ). When loss is introduced, the conjugate match theorem begins to fail. For open wire or ladder line and a properly designed and adjusted tuner, the loss can be a dB or less and the match between the antenna and the complex Z looking into the coax is quite good. For a coax feedline with 3 dB loss and a badly adjusted tuner, the total loss can easily be 6 dB or more. In that case, the antenna is only partly matched by the tuner. But for a tuner to provide NO improvement in the match at the antenna/feedline interface the tuner/feedline loss would have to be infinite. Thus a tuner will ALWAYS at least partially tune the antenna. This is where the myth is totally wrong, when it says that a "transmatch" cannnot tune the antenna. A transmatch at the transmitter cannot change the mismatch between the antenna and the Zo of the coax, but it can and does make the Z looking down the coax closer to what the antenna would need for a conjugate match. A Smith chart program that includes provision for lossy lines will clearly show all of this, and for "Smithophobes" the program TLW,, which is included in the ARRL antenna book will also show it and is easy to use.
This is a true and very useful comment. A perfect conjugate match can only exist in a lossless system. In a lossy system it should be close enough to be useful. In the real world component tolerances are, at best, +/- 5%. The variations in ground impedance at a location can vary by 20% or more depending upon whether or not they are dry, wet, frozen, intertidal salt water, etc. Nothing's perfect.
Yup! I'm running a 42 ft end fed rand wire, near vertical on my sailboat. I'm working the world with 100w. The tuner is remote, located at the feed point so no coax loss due to high swr. I can tune 160 to 6 m with a flat match. Best performance is 40 to 10 m
(KD6XU)
Sounds like fun but you perhaps didn't need a remote tuner especially since a sailboat feed line can't be very long and losses even with higher SWR's would be minimal.
More folks should read one of John D Kraus's antenna books. He makes the point that the *ideal* antenna is a combined transmission line transformer and EM wave transducer that seamlessly transforms the feedline's Zo impedance to the natural impedance of free space (~377 ohms) where the EM wave is emitted or received. When viewed in this manner, it's fairly easy to see how one may consider the combination of a less-than-ideal feedline, matching network and antenna combination as being a *system* for EM wave transmission and reception; i.e., an *antenna system*. (Apologies to JDK's ghost for my partial and simplified summation of his detailed work.)
Any chance you could make a comprehensive walkthrough video on the nature of reflections? I am reading Maxwell's "Another Look at Reflections" article and without any physics and engineering background, I am having a real hard time wrapping my mind around this. I will finish it and re-read it until I get it. Intuitively, I adhere to Walt Maxwell's writings. Especially, now that I've made more contacts with SWR values 1.5 to 1.9 :1 than I made with 1.1:1 However, I just want to understand the true nature of transmission line mechanics and power delivery. And I couldn't find anybody else explaining Maxwell's work on YT. Most of the videos on the subject invariably default to things like heat dissipation, power loss, ATUs just fooling radios, SWR kills antenna efficiency...I mean, I'd rather learn from someone, who's work went into space , someone who had government resources for experimentation and studying the subject at its deepest level, than UA-cam "experts'' many of whom simply turned to peddlers of various radio products.
I'll see what I can do. In the meantime make sure you have seen this: ua-cam.com/video/Xz73tkDOZDw/v-deo.html. Your observations about a lack of good information on what really happens in a transmission line is correct. Maxwell himself said that. And it is difficult to wrap your head around but keep at it and you will get it.
Thanks for your nice videos.
Many many years ago I was taught by my elmer, that you just have to have open wire or twin lead with an antenna tuner and coax was a big no no. Then I tested it myself and the coax worked just fine. Today you can google some online cable loss calculator and see that you get only a couple of db loss if you have a long cable. 73! Eeli from the OH
This is correct.
Hi. Do you have "magic" length for the antenna that would be long enough to catch say 1/2, 1/4, and maybe 1/8 waves of many bands? For example an end fed that can do like 80/40/20 meters with a tuner but still is long enough? Thank you
www.balundesigns.com/content/Wire%20Lengths%20for%204%20and%209-1%20ununs.pdf
Well said 👍
Howdy. I am with You.
I would like to quote Dave Casler. An antenna tuner tunes the system comprising the antenna, the feed line, the tuner and the environment.
If someone can construct a tuner that tunes a two meter whip on 40 meters he is a true wizard. The voltages would be enormous most certainly arcing any conventional varicap. But yes. If a super voltage capacitor can be built then technically Yes. It would radiate almost full power. The setup would be dangerous. One would have to operate that tuner by remote control servos from a distance of at least 100 feet.
I believe many do not undestand that the reflected power gets back reflected again at the tuner. There are many generations of ping-ponged waves at the tuner output. They interact along the transimission line. The interaction produces the conjugate impedance to the antenna impedance, at the antenna input.
So far so good for an unmodulated carrier only. However, when modulation is applied the scenario changes. The modulation causes the original wave and the re-reflected waves carrying different information. Purely technically this produces distortion. But in reality this has no meaning to the intelligibility of reception.
Regards.
measure twice cut once. sounds like it's better to be to long. if i got this right the tuner can shorten the antenna but not make it longer for certain bands?
It can theoretically make it longer or shorter. But yes, longer is better. Shortened antennas are a compromise.
You say you can't change the length of a antenna but yet your tuner does this for you.
If your antenna is too long it acts inductive so your add more capacity to make it electrical shorter.
If your antenna is too short it acts capacitive so you add more induction to make it longer.
That is what your antenna tuner is doing.
And resonant does not mean it is 50 Ohms. Resonant means that induction and capacitor cancel each other out.
A dipole fed in the middle has an impedance of about 72 Ohms (not 50 ohms 1:1 on your 50 Ohms cable).
But fed at the end it becomes a EFHW and that is certainly not low in impedance.
Maxwell says the tuner is able to theoretically stretch the feed line to a length where it provides a conjugate match at each junction.
Then why would I need an antenna for each hf frequency band. I’ll just put up a non resonant dipole that fits my back yard and put an antenna tuner next to my transmitter.
Exactly. Make sure it's long enough, a half wave, for the lowest frequency you plan to use. Short antennas don't work nearly as well as a full size antenna.
Add 600ohm balance feedline you will have quite an efficient system
It tunes the entire antenna system. They know code but that is all they know. 97ft of wire, inverted V, 9:1 balun easily tunes 160m through 6m on ft991a internal tuner
You're correct but you're glossing over some details that are important to understand.
Yes, the tuner is tuning both sides but as it adds opposing reactance, that implies reactive current must also be "sloshing" back and forth in the coax between the tuner and the antenna - eg transmission losses will go up for both TX and RX. That current sloshing back and forth is very real with every slosh some percentage is lost to the coax. This can be mitigated with a tuner mounted close to the antenna or using ladder line which has a lot lower loss. And to the point I think you're really trying to make, an antenna that requires a tuner is not inherently bad! It's practical and will totally get you on the bands. But since we're on the topic of myths it's worth thinking through exactly why this is not ideal.
As the frequency of interest gets farther from the antennas natural resonance, the reactance needed to tune the system goes up, eg losses go up. Meanwhile radiation resistance is dropping (think of Rr as how much of each current slosh is being radiated out). You're losing efficiency from both ends. This can still work though, and that's pretty much what a magnetic loop is - just a very short folded dipole. But the reactive current is significant and the balancing reactance (C) is right next to the element to minimize losses.
And we should also keep in mind that all this talk of tuning a fixed size antenna is a separate issue from how is the radiation pattern being affected. As you mentioned some antennas use this technique to change their radiation pattern and get more energy focused towards the horizon. It's not always easy with electromagnetics but try to think about the fundamentals, what is actually happening and it helps to get a better picture of what's going on and how it all interacts. There is no free lunch in engineering, everything is a tradeoff. The challenge (fun) is making the tradeoffs that are most acceptable for your particular situation.
I get what you are saying but reflected power losses in the HF bands with good coax and moderate SWR is insignificant.
aka "impedance matching device."
That's really what it is.
How about doing something about the myths! Like correcting the AARL books that mis inform Hams . Also don’t put anyone down about not knowing Code , CW is dying on the vine. I would love to see some of the Ham snobs admit they got started with CB! JohnBoyUtah KJ7TBR😎🇺🇸📡🎙
Tune around the bands during a CW contest and you'll see its alive and well.
Without doubt, ARRL books are not perfect; but they are NOT tomes of misinformation. I see no evidence of CW (Morse Code) dying. If anything, it's becoming more popular -- especially among the QRP POTA and SOTA crowd.
dropping the code and those that know better LOL
I wary of people who teach other than conventional theory !
You may be in the presence of a genius !
And you might not !
A tuner does not tune the antenna if it's at the xmtr ...it only tunes the antenna if it is at the antenna. My decades of AM directional arrays using Maxwell's formula confirms that..the transmission line is NOT the antenna..
Well Maxwell disagrees with you. He says the tuner, tunes the antenna by creating a conjugate match at the feed point and he has done the math and lab work to prove it.
I prefer using a monoband yagi stack over something I need a tuner for ;D
Semantic hogwash! Antenna Vs. "antenna system".
Call it what you want the end result is the same.
@@NoMoreRadioMyths Quite so, and the end result of using a tuner is that when losses are small, the tuner causes the antenna to see an impedance that more nearly matches its complex Z than it would if the tuner were not being used. In that way it "makes the antenna happy". So saying that a tuner "only makes the transmitter happy" is clearly a myth. The "tuner doesn't tune the antenna" may or may not be a myth, depending on one's definitions. But it can be "mythleading". (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun) By tuning the whole system, within the limits imposed by losses, the tuner makes everyone happy. 🙂When there are losses, the antenna is "happier" but not totally happy. When the losses are bad in either the tuner or the feedline, the operator wont be very happy, even if the tuner reduces the SWR to 1:1.