Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!sullivan
From: sullivan@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: antenna tuners for receivers.
Message-ID: <16400015@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 11:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.16400015
Posted: Fri Sep 14 11:11:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 03:46:36 EDT
References: <13395@Mitre-Bed.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:Mitre-Bed:-1339500:acf4:16400015:000:924
Nf-From: acf4!sullivan    Sep 14 11:11:00 1984

Tuners no good for receivers?  Ah, this is not so!  My ICOM R71A manual says
that "for best performance" one should have an antenna tuner to ensure that
the receiver sees 50 ohms (or as close as possible).  And sure enough, an
antenna tuner made a big difference in signal catching capability.  I should
add that I don't believe that my "receiver is so poor that [it is] limited
by received signal strength and receiver front-end noise."  

In any case, I no longer use an antenna tuner since I now have a McKay-Dymek
DA 100D active antenna. (I couldn't put up an antenna in my new apartment, so
I bought this and sat it on a window sill).  The DA 100D presents a nice
load to the ICOM, and works out better than my previous antenna tuner/fire-
escape antenna.  I recommend this antenna to anyone who is in a similar
predicament.

David J. Sullivan, WA1TNS		sullivan@nyu-cmcl2
New York University			...!ihnp4!cmcl2!sullivan