Hams often speak of inline RF wattmeters as being ‘averaging’, but are they? Continue reading Are inline RF wattmeters really averaging
A ham posted online:
I spent several happy hours this weekend building the DE of the 6M Quad described in the June 2014 QST, p 30. When I got it completed, I put the antenna analyzer on it, expecting to find a nice resonance in the 50-51Mhz region and an impedance of 120 ohms or thereabouts. To my surprise, the radiation resistance in the couple of dozen ohm range, and resonance, if that is what I can call it, depends on how am I holding the loop.
After a bit of QST bashing in the thread, he later reveals:
The trial with the analyzer was about 2′ of RG-8X with PL-259s on each end, to BNC jacks on both antenna and analyzer with adaptors.
Much as the chap expressed his lack of confidence in modelling tools, NEC reveals what is happening. Continue reading Analysers – help or hindrance
NFM has been updated to v1.18.0.
It includes for user convenience, a noise measurement uncertainty calculator based on the discussion of uncertainty of the noise sampling process at (Duffy 2007b) and the calculator at (Duffy 2007c)
Much is written about the virtues of some types of coax connectors over others.
A common method of making Noise Figure measurements of a receiver is to use a noise generator of known noise power. The output power of the DUT is measured with the generator off (NoiseLo) and on (NoiseHi), a Y factor calculated, and from that Noise Figure is calculated.
(Allison et al 2011) detail the method used by the ARRL in their test reports on equipment.
Effectively they calculate NF=-174+27-MDS where MDS is measured
in the CW mode using the 500 Hz, or closest available IF filter (or audio filters where IF filters are not available). Continue reading ARRL Test Procedures Manual (Rev L) – Noise Figure calculation
I described a method for designing antenna systems to avoid excessive voltages in baluns and ATUs at (Duffy 2011) .
This article reports post implementation measurements of an antenna system designed using that method and using a G5RV Inverted V with tuned feeder and ATR-30 ATU with integral 1:1 current balun. The tuned feeder is a home-made line section of 2mm diameter copper conductors spaced 50mm, and 9m in length. An additional 0.5m of 135Ω line connects from the antenna entrance panel to the ATU.
This is a project to design and build a Guanella 1:1 (current) balun suited for up to 100W on HF with wire antennas and an ATU.
For use with a tuner, the most important design criteria are:
- high voltage withstand;
- high common mode impedance;
- power handling.
Third part in the series..
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun’ for HF – #1
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun’ for HF – #2
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun for HF’ – #3
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun for HF’ – #4
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun for HF’ – #5
- Design / build project: Guanella 1:1 ‘tuner balun for HF’ – #6
Common mode current measurement
Direct measurement of common mode current in an antenna system is the best indicator or whether there is a common mode current problem.
In Common mode current and coaxial feed lines, I mentioned that common mode current is easily measured.
I tried to glean some useful information from G3TXQ’s measurements of windowed ladder line loss at Windowed ladder line loss – G3TXQ.
In reviewing his article today (05/02/14), there is new information on a further series of measurements of the same line.
The shape and position of the two lines does not reconcile with the formulas stated, so I digitised the data points and analysed the data set to try to find the most appropriate model for the reported measurements. Note that although the chart above is in imperial units, my work is usually in ISO metric units, and usually basic units.
The digitised data points were converted to loss in dB/m, and fitted to the model MLL=k0+k1*f^0.5+k2*f using regression techniques. Note that the digitisation process introduces some noise, but it is estimated to be small compared to the noise in the underlying measurement data.
The coefficients k0, k1, k2 were reviewed to test that there was sufficient data to support the hypothesis that they were not zero, and all three passed that test, the standard error of the coefficient was significantly less than the coefficient. Note that k0 is not derived from a DC measurement of resistance as done by some modellers, but from the measurement data over the range of 3.6 to 48MHz in this case, and extrapolation beyond that frequency range increases uncertainty.
The above chart shows G3TXQ’s measurements as digitised from his published graph, and it shows the components of loss indicated from the model I built (the k0 component is allocated as conductor loss).
The “G3TXQ model” line is equivalent to his MLL=0.063+0.063*f^0.5 dB/100′ converted to dB/m, and as you can see it is not a good fit to the measurement data points, nor does MLL=0.063+0,063*f^0.5 dB/100′ reconcile with the blue line on G3TXQ’s chart earlier in this article.
G3TXQ’s measurement points (as digitised) are quite a good fit to the model MLL=0.001456+1.499e-6*f+5.631e-11*f dB/m where f is in Hz, and provide a good predictor of MLL over 3.6 to 48MHz.