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