Sutitible Tuner for 80-6M

[WA4JK]

I need some advice on a Tuner for 80-6m. My carrier would not be over 150W. I'll be using a Wire for antenna. Which Wire I can't say I like to build them and change them around both ladder fed and coax.

[flintstone mop]

The Johnson MatchBox is always a favorite and will accept ladder line and coax.
They pop up now and then here in AMFONE "For Sale or Trade" and eHam classifieds, QTH dot com is another classified source.
The Match Box came in a 275 version and a KW version.
Hard to beat. They would handle RF power and tune about anything.
MFJ has reasonably priced tuners. It would be wise to get an MFJ that is capable of a lot more power, than what you are going to feed it with. Look at any reviews for whatever tuner, other than the Johnson, for tuning range. Some antenna tuners run out of steam with certain antenna configurations.
I had a very nice looking, nice design, PALSTAR top-o-the-line BALANCED antenna tuner. Beautiful workmanship, but it would not "tune" my full length dipole (240 feet long) for 160M. It ran out of range at 2 mhz. The owner would not believe me and told me that my antenna had a problem. PALSTAR took back the tuner and charged a hefty re-stocking fee. I bought an old work horse tuner that works perfectly. A Dentron 3KA!!
Even my home brew tuner worked on that same antenna. I like the Dentron with its coil taps that are switched. I can tune to any band quickly and it never arcs or sparks at QRO power!
Fred

[WA4JK]

Your right Fred, I read some comments and test on circiular current measurments and the Matchbox is very low with that issue. I only will need a 275w version so I'm on the hunt, but i would not trun down the 1Kw if i found one.

[WD5JKO]

My EFJ Matchbox 275 is a work horse for sure, used 80-10m with OWL load. It does NOT however do much for 6m. It will not match my 15M loop when set for 10m, and trying to get an SWR null on 6m...

For 160-6m, the Heathkit 2060A works well tuning virtually anything at the coax or single wire antenna output. It is a 'T' match though and therefore has a high pass response. To some this is a big issue, but these days is it really? The OWL output on the 2060A is best with non resonant feeders though. If the OWL feeders are resonant or tuned, then the Johnson matchbox is superior.

Jim
WD5JKO

[KG4DAG]

I'm gonna make myself an S-Match tuner for balanced feed.

http://pa0fri.home.xs4all.nl/ATU/Smatch/smatcheng.htm


My plan is to use the inductor from a Collins 180 tuner and
a vacuum variable or something similar... I like the circuit and
I'll see how it works..

[K5UJ]

For 160-6m, the Heathkit 2060A works well tuning virtually anything at the coax or single wire antenna output. It is a 'T' match though and therefore has a high pass response. To some this is a big issue, but these days is it really?

It probably depends on the rig.   a single ended final swing link output and I'd want all the harmonic filtering I can get.  a p.p. final would be different, at least for the second harmonic.  the KW matchbox is supposed to proved an additional 15 dB harmonic attenuation.

The OWL output on the 2060A is best with non resonant feeders though. If the OWL feeders are resonant or tuned, then the Johnson matchbox is superior.
 

I guess I don't understand Jim--I don't see why an unbalanced tuner that uses a balun is better (we need to understand what better means here I suppose) if the feedline is non-resonant.  if the feed is tuned, i.e. flat, but perhaps not at the design Z of the rig's output network, a matching network may still be needed and I'd opt for a balanced design.

In the above case, a lot of rigs (vintage) may not even need a tuner unless they have an unbalanced output and need a way to transfer to balanced line.  I operate on the original definition of "tuned feeder" which is a feedline made for a characteristic Z that is the same as the load Z so there's no mis-match between the line and the load and the line is therefore flat.   I guess it can also be used to refer to a line of a certain length that repeats the load Z at a regular interval. 

Rob

[WD5JKO]

Rob,

  I am referring to a tuner like the 2060A that tunes first unbalanced to unbalanced, and then has a balon option on the output for OWL.

   The balun designs in various tuners have limitations. A 1:4 unbalanced to balanced balun would likely work well into a 150-400 ohm resistive load. Take the same balun and try to feed a resonant line at a voltage maxima where the impedance might be 2000 ohms. It just won't do it efficiently. Add some reactance to the load, and even if fairly low Z, there will be core heating..so you have to over rate the balun to work into a complex load impedance.

  A case in point, my 15m loop works fairly well on 40m with the Johnson 275 matchbox where the feeders are "tuned". I did smoke the SO-239 that was "just there" though from the super high voltage at the feedpoint. I tried the same feedline/antenna on the Heathkit 2060A rated for the old 1KW DC input rules, and with 50 watts AM that balun got squirrely as it heated up. It took about 2 minutes. That same 1:4 balun into a resistive 200 ohm load would easily handle 500 watts or more.

Jim
WD5JKO  

[N4LTA]

Had problems with a PALSTAR tuner  - Quality issues - ones that anyone looking should have caught.
Unsoldered joints in the bridge.

Called them and was told that it could not have happened - it did and I'll never buy from them again because they were jerks to work with.

EFJ for sure if you can find one.

[WA4JK]

I'll be feeding the Valiant a coax 50Ohm to a 450Ohm ladderline dipole. I've heard but never test on the old Valiant direct matching of the Valiant. But I never had the danglies to do it. I think the Valiant will match somewhere from 25-600 ohms but not for sure. I need to look that up.

[K5UJ]

Okay  Jim I see; thanks.  I've never tried using an unbalanced network-->torroid balun-->balanced line--I've heard the currents on the line aren't equal with them but I have no direct experience.

I'll be feeding the Valiant a coax 50Ohm to a 450Ohm ladderline dipole. I've heard but never test on the old Valiant direct matching of the Valiant. But I never had the danglies to do it. I think the Valiant will match somewhere from 25-600 ohms but not for sure. I need to look that up.

The range of the Valiant is probably okay; the problem is it is designed to feed coax not open wire line.  You have to have some way to make the transfer from unbalanced to balanced.  A circuit similar to what you find in a matchbox is okay but there are other designs like the K1JJ Famous Tuner elsewhere on this site. 

[WA4JK]

The antenna is a coax fed dipole. The coax is terminated to 450ohm which feeds at the center. I don't have anyway right now to measure the resistance at the PL259, nor reactiance. There might be a piece of software I can put the data into and it could guess-a-mate it.

[Steve - K4HX]

How long is the 450 Ohm line and how long is the 50 Ohm coax? What are the dipole dimensions and its height above ground. On what bands do you wish to use it.

[WA4JK]

I think I'll stick with a tuner, This will go into one of those opinion drivils which will result in the same conversation which can be read in the archives over and over. I found a spreadsheet matrix of QST comparisons wich speaks well of the Matchbox tuners as well as others. Thanks for the input....

[W3GMS]

I need some advice on a Tuner for 80-6m. My carrier would not be over 150W. I'll be using a Wire for antenna. Which Wire I can't say I like to build them and change them around both ladder fed and coax.

Jerry,
Since you asked the question, let me give you my response!  If your going to use this antenna on all bands, I would suggest that you use all open wire line and ditch the coax.  If you just want one band than there is little difference between OWL or coax. 

For a balanced fed antenna using open wire line, I would suggest either the "Rick Measures" style tuner, a Johnson Matchbox or one you build using either the Measures topology or the Matchbox topology.  That will be your most efficient way to go.  The biggest drawback with the Johnson Matchbox is the somewhat limited impedance range it covers.  In some installations this presents no problem and in other it does.  By changing the OWL length you sometimes can work through that issue if it becomes an issue. 

Fred mentioned his misfortune with the Palstar Tuner.  I have had the AT1500BAL for many years now and it works wonderful on 160 to 10 meters.  They do not make that model but have a replacement which I hear good things about.  Its one of the few tuners I have not fried!  The Palstar tuner is based on the Measures design.  Its an expensive piece but made very well.  If you enjoy home-brewing, you can have a lot of fun building one as well.  Its a very simple design.  My antenna is a 240' center fed with 600 ohm open wire line. 

Have fun with your project!

Joe, W3GMS     

[WA4JK]

I've got an old ah-811 dead amp I think I'll gut and buld a link couple tuner or something on the Rick Measures line in it. I can use the band switch and build from there.. Why did I not think of that first... Thanks

[W3GMS]

This link may help you:

http://www.somis.org/bbat.html

Joe, W3GMS

[W2VW]

This link may help you:

http://www.somis.org/bbat.html

Joe, W3GMS

A lot of people bail on that circuit because of the synchronized coils.

There is no need for all that jazz. Those couplers can be built with hand wound inductors. Fine the taps needed stir and serve.

The balanced balanced design will match loads the Johnson Matchbox has no hope of matching. It will also deliver power to those oddball loads if constructed and used properly. The same cannot be stated for most other popular designs.  

Band cruising can be done without retuning on every band as the Measures design is not bandpass like a linky coupled coupler.

Measures lowpass configuration design can be setup to run entire wire feeders and antenna at DC ground through safety choke in AMplifier.

The ugly BalUn mentioned in the article is probably not going to perform satisfactorily across all H.F. and certainly not at 160 and 6 in one configuration. Balun Designs to the rescue. Use a good 1:1 type.

[W2NBC]

"Those couplers can be built with hand wound inductors"...  

Here's an example of the Measures design.. Just make sure you have enough wall space to mount it!

[W2VW]

"Those couplers can be built with hand would inductors"...  

Here's an example of the Measures design.. Just make sure you have enough wall space to mount it!

Hand wound....


That example was created in about one hour the night before K3L 2005.

[k4kyv]

a single ended final swing link output and I'd want all the harmonic filtering I can get.  a p.p. final would be different, at least for the second harmonic.  the KW matchbox is supposed to proved an additional 15 dB harmonic attenuation.

Rob,

The harmonic output of a single ended final with link coupling shouldn't be much different from that of a single ended final with a pi-network, if in each case the loaded Q of the tank circuit is at least 10 to 12, and the link is coupled to the coil at the cold end. Of course, the push-pull final has the advantage of theoretically balancing out even harmonics, and since with push-pull, the tuned circuit is excited with two kicks per RF cycle instead of one, the output is less dependent on the flywheel effect at the tank circuit to generate a pure sine wave, so push-pull should be cleaner in terms of harmonics. That has nothing to do with link coupling or pi network. A push-pull final may be built with a balanced pi network output. Circuits are described in the pre-WWII Radio Handbook, and that's what is in the military BC-339 using a pair of 833As.

I don't see why an unbalanced tuner that uses a balun is better (we need to understand what better means here I suppose) if the feedline is non-resonant.  if the feed is tuned, i.e. flat, but perhaps not at the design Z of the rig's output network, a matching network may still be needed and I'd opt for a balanced design.

In the above case, a lot of rigs (vintage) may not even need a tuner unless they have an unbalanced output and need a way to transfer to balanced line.  I operate on the original definition of "tuned feeder" which is a feedline made for a characteristic Z that is the same as the load Z so there's no mis-match between the line and the load and the line is therefore flat.   I guess it can also be used to refer to a line of a certain length that repeats the load Z at a regular interval.

"Tuned" or "resonant" feeders means that the OWL line is not matched, i.e., it is working into a load that is different from its characteristic impedance, Zo. With tuned feeders there IS a mis-match between the line and the load, so the tuned feeders operate with standing waves, and depending on the load at the opposite end (which may or may not have a reactive component) and the length of the line, the antenna tuning unit may end up seeing a wide variety of load impedances as the frequency is varied, and only rarely is that load likely to be purely resistive.

"Untuned" or "non-resonant" feeders means no mis-match between the line and the load, so that the OWL is "flat" or "matched", working into a purely resistive load that is the same as its characteristic impedance Zo. No standing waves exist along the line and varying the length of the transmission line has no effect on the load seen by the ATU. This is the balanced equivalent of coax working into a perfectly matched load with 1:1 SWR.

The unbalanced tuner working into a balanced OWL through a balun may be OK for untuned feeders (no standing waves), but the balun should be built optimum for whatever purely resistive load impedance it is working into. I would still prefer a balanced matching network like the EFJ Matchbox or homebrew link coupled balanced tuner, to the unbalanced tuner-balun combination. Inevitably, the tuner has some loss, and the balun has additional loss, so why not use a balanced tuner to begin with and avoid the additional loss in the balun?

IMO, unbalanced network-->toroid balun-->balanced resonant line, i.e. the common amateur radio practice of inserting the balun between an unbalanced tuner and a tuned or resonant balanced OWL, so that the balun is looking into a reactive load whose impedance is expected to vary with frequency, is bogus.

73,
Don

[Steve - K4HX]

Of course there will be opinions. There is no "one tuner design" that is the best for a wide variety of antenna types and impedances. The reality is that all of the major tuner designs will work about equally well in most normal situations when they are built with properly sized components.

[W2VW]

Of course there will be opinions. There is no "one tuner design" that is the best for a wide variety of antenna types and impedances. The reality is that all of the major tuner designs will work about equally well in most normal situations when they are built with properly sized components.

That's a bit of a stretch. A T network into a 4:1 BalUn is a major design and does not do well with low impedance'''''s or medium to high reactance.

[K5UJ]

A lot of people bail on that circuit because of the synchronized coils.

There is no need for all that jazz. Those couplers can be built with hand wound inductors. Fine the taps needed stir and serve.

The Measures tuner works and the rollers can be put on a common shaft so the business of belts and pulleys isn't needed.

The balanced balanced design will match loads the Johnson Matchbox has no hope of matching.

That depends on what's used in the Measures tuner.  And, in my opinion, a match-anything tuner isn't necessarily a good thing.  Some loads that can be matched are loads that are so poor, that I'd want the tuner to give up so I know to improve the antenna rather than match a POS.

Band cruising can be done without retuning on every band as the Measures design is not bandpass like a linky coupled coupler.

Maybe, but I've done the measures design, with a 1000 pF vacuum cap and rollers on a common shaft and found I had to retune the thing every day, whereas with the Matchbox I can adjust it to provide a 50 j0 input, come back a day or two later, and it is right there where I left it on the frequency I tuned it on.   However, I tend to stay put on a particular band for long periods so a lack of band cruising doesn't bother me.  The link also stops common mode garbage and isolates the balanced line.  The link to coil is essentially a tunable balun.  The CM may not matter though if the operator is in a rural area.   To be sure, I have had to add series capacitance to my KW MB to cover all of 80 meters.

Another thing I like about the link coupled designs is that I can dispense with that stupid 1:1 unun on the input, which I have burnt up a few times.    Anytime efficient power transfer and balance can be achieved in a transmitting system without the use of a toroidal or bead balun or unun, an improvement has been made.  

[W2VW]

Antenna posts never disappoint.

Roller inductors are expensive especially in matched pairs. My point was the Measures thing can be built without spending a lot of money.

Yes it works. I have noticed that several times.

A Johnson Matchbox is itself a BalUn. Unbalanced port in balanced port out. If your station mandate shouted from mountaintops is there shall be no BalUns, you can't have a Johnson Flashbox.

The Measures tuner has no problem eliminating common mode current provided the input Balun is specified properly and the layout is symmetrical.

Some of us cannot improve doublet layouts due to space constraints.

[Steve - K4HX]

Don't tell Slab Bacon that.   

Of course there will be opinions. There is no "one tuner design" that is the best for a wide variety of antenna types and impedances. The reality is that all of the major tuner designs will work about equally well in most normal situations when they are built with properly sized components.

That's a bit of a stretch. A T network into a 4:1 BalUn is a major design and does not do well with low impedance'''''s or medium to high reactance.