I use the MFJ - because I could afford it at the time.
....and this analyzer post gives me an idea about the Stainless-steel wire
thread - hmmm

"Darrell Gordon W4CX" wrote in message
...
Group..I've just discovered this group (what took me so long?) and am
impressed with the knowledge here. I am shopping for an antenna
analyzer and am stymied by the choices (or lack thereof). In all of
hamdom (sub $600), I only find MFJ, Autek, AEA wireless, and Kuranishi
to choose from. I've checked eham reviews and found that the AEA VIA
(not Bravo) rates highest...and most expensive. Probably worth it.
Unfortunately, it's only good to 54Mhz, and I'd need up to 450Mhz. I
know this is impossible, and would be willing to go with separate
units (Autek), but they have awful reviews quality.

My question: What are you guys using for HF measurements? What about
V/UHF measurements? Do you recommend any particular model? How about
used HP gear from ebay (yes, I know the risks). V/UHF is my priority
since I'm building some copper loops for 6 and 2. What say you sage
antenna gurus?
Darrell W4CX



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.744 / Virus Database: 496 - Release Date: 8/24/2004

The only thing wrong with the Autek is its internal oscillator has only a
few microwatts output. And for the few components inside it, it is
overpriced.
---
Reg

I use a GR 1606A when its capabilities are needed. I even salvaged
another from being scraped so I have a back-up.
However, for most tasks, I find that the AEA VIA is the cat's meow.
For instance, when trying to tune a Matchbox to strange frequencies, the
VIA tells one which way things are going.
I have not tried to use the VIA in the presence of strong broadcast
transmitters. At work, we have HP (Agelent) network analyzers and
standards to use as comparisons.
AEA also makes, and I use, a modest TDR that is good enough to be
used to keep track of transmission lines, connectors, and in-line
protection devices.

As Roy, and others, have said: when you need a GR, you need a GR.
Before I bought a 1606, I was once loaned the 900 something predecessor
to the 1606. This instrument is inside of a small, copper lined
suitcase and the particular instrument had been used by the military
since about WW2. The outside showed use. It was spot on with my
standards and, when I opened up the case, the insides were still bright
and shinny. GR made quality instruments.
Though I have not used it, somewhere I have a Delta bridge that was
given to me.

Go for the VIA for HF. You will not be disappointed.

73, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I have an MFJ 269 and a GR 1606A. Each has its place.

Darrell, W4CX wrote:
"V/UHF is my priority since I`m building some copper loops for 6 and 2."

In the U.S., General Radio is champion. But, in Europe we used a British
Wayne Kerr UHF admittance bridge on lines and antennas in the middle of
a high frequency broadcast plant with a dozen or more competing
transmitters on the air at full power, as they always were.

The secret of success is the bridge detector used. A Collins 51-J was
useless, solid noise across the H-F bands. A Hammarlund SP-600 worked
like a champ.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:18:23 -0400, "J. McLaughlin" wrote:
snip

As Roy, and others, have said: when you need a GR, you need a GR.
Before I bought a 1606, I was once loaned the 900 something predecessor
to the 1606. This instrument is inside of a small, copper lined
suitcase and the particular instrument had been used by the military
since about WW2. The outside showed use. It was spot on with my
standards and, when I opened up the case, the insides were still bright
and shinny. GR made quality instruments.
snip

73, Mac N8TT

Hi Mac,

The predecessor to the GR-1606A was the GR-916A, which was the cadillac of
professional bridges prior to the GR-1606A, which came out in 1955. I used the
916A to adjust the tower resistance of WCEN, 1150 kHz, the station I engineered
and built in 1948. The National HRO receiver was used as the detector.

Walt, W2DU

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:06:35 -0500, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:

Darrell, W4CX wrote:
"V/UHF is my priority since I`m building some copper loops for 6 and 2."

In the U.S., General Radio is champion. But, in Europe we used a British
Wayne Kerr UHF admittance bridge on lines and antennas in the middle of
a high frequency broadcast plant with a dozen or more competing
transmitters on the air at full power, as they always were.

The secret of success is the bridge detector used. A Collins 51-J was
useless, solid noise across the H-F bands. A Hammarlund SP-600 worked
like a champ.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hi Richard,

Interesting you mentioned the Wayne Kerr UHF bridge. In my impedance-measuring
arsenal is the Wayne Kerr B108 admittance bridge. The beautiful aspect of this
bridge is that it's unknown terminals are balanced, thus allowing direct
measurement of balanced lines.

My arsenal also includes: 2 HP 8405 Vector Voltmeters with HP-778D dual
directional coupler.
HP-4815 Vector Impedance Meter
GR-1606A
GR-1606B
Boonton 250A Impedance Meter
PRD-219 Complex Reflection Coefficient Meter, 20 to 1000 MHz

What would you like me to measure?

Walt

A very capable engineering colleage of mine mentioned some time ago that
an AEA he had purchased worked very well except for one thing -- the
reference point appeared to be inside the instrument. He said it was as
though there were another length of line (about 5 cm as I recall)
inside. For example, measurement of a short circuit would indicate the
amount of positive reactance you'd expect from such a line. This might
not be too important for general purpose HF use, but would be a problem
with some measurements, especially at high frequencies. It could be
removed by mathematical adjustment of the measurement results, of course.

I mentioned this problem to the AEA folks at Dayton, not long after it
changed hands, and they might have fixed it. Do you see this phenomenon?

I saw a similar thing when I spent a few minutes playing with the very
first model of Autek. I don't see this with my MFJ.

Again, the problem might have been fixed, but it's something to look
for, particularly on an older used unit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

J. McLaughlin wrote:
I use a GR 1606A when its capabilities are needed. I even salvaged
another from being scraped so I have a back-up.
However, for most tasks, I find that the AEA VIA is the cat's meow.
For instance, when trying to tune a Matchbox to strange frequencies, the
VIA tells one which way things are going.
I have not tried to use the VIA in the presence of strong broadcast
transmitters. At work, we have HP (Agelent) network analyzers and
standards to use as comparisons.
AEA also makes, and I use, a modest TDR that is good enough to be
used to keep track of transmission lines, connectors, and in-line
protection devices.

As Roy, and others, have said: when you need a GR, you need a GR.
Before I bought a 1606, I was once loaned the 900 something predecessor
to the 1606. This instrument is inside of a small, copper lined
suitcase and the particular instrument had been used by the military
since about WW2. The outside showed use. It was spot on with my
standards and, when I opened up the case, the insides were still bright
and shinny. GR made quality instruments.
Though I have not used it, somewhere I have a Delta bridge that was
given to me.

Go for the VIA for HF. You will not be disappointed.

73, Mac N8TT

Dear Walt:
As I remember, and this was a long time ago, the 916's unknown port
was less convenient to use than was the case with the 1606. As several
have pointed out, one needs a competent detector.
For VHF/UHF work, GR had an "admittance" bridge that worked very
well. Used one to tune a 400 MHz feed (of an 85 foot dish) so that the
feed was resonant at two frequency bands 60 MHz apart (30 MHz IF strip).
Thanks for the memories.

A correction to what I wrote: I have a CIA-HF from AEA, not a VIA.

73 Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:18:23 -0400, "J. McLaughlin"
wrote:
snip

As Roy, and others, have said: when you need a GR, you need a
GR.
Before I bought a 1606, I was once loaned the 900 something
predecessor
to the 1606. This instrument is inside of a small, copper lined
suitcase and the particular instrument had been used by the military
since about WW2. The outside showed use. It was spot on with my
standards and, when I opened up the case, the insides were still
bright
and shinny. GR made quality instruments.
snip

73, Mac N8TT

Hi Mac,

The predecessor to the GR-1606A was the GR-916A, which was the
cadillac of
professional bridges prior to the GR-1606A, which came out in 1955. I
used the
916A to adjust the tower resistance of WCEN, 1150 kHz, the station I
engineered
and built in 1948. The National HRO receiver was used as the detector.

Walt, W2DU

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
A very capable engineering colleage of mine mentioned some time ago that
an AEA he had purchased worked very well except for one thing -- the
reference point appeared to be inside the instrument. He said it was as
though there were another length of line (about 5 cm as I recall)
inside. For example, measurement of a short circuit would indicate the
amount of positive reactance you'd expect from such a line. This might
not be too important for general purpose HF use, but would be a problem
with some measurements, especially at high frequencies. It could be
removed by mathematical adjustment of the measurement results, of course.

I mentioned this problem to the AEA folks at Dayton, not long after it
changed hands, and they might have fixed it. Do you see this phenomenon?

I saw a similar thing when I spent a few minutes playing with the very
first model of Autek. I don't see this with my MFJ.

Again, the problem might have been fixed, but it's something to look
for, particularly on an older used unit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hi Roy,
I briefly owned the AEA V/U model- probably in 1999. Using my HP precision
termination set, it appeared that the best VHF return loss was indicated
when the analyzer was terminated in around 60 Ohms and for UHF it was 75
Ohms. When I called AEA to inquire, I was told "that's about the accuracy
you should expect for $500". The Autek V/U instrument was in excellent
agreement with an HP 8711B.

Dale W4OP

Thanks to all for a very informative thread. You guys are living up
to your reputation.
Has anyone had any experience with an HP 8754? They seem to be
around, and with a b/w of 4-1300Mhz might be an excellent choice???
Darrell