Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 08:49:51 +0000, Spike
wrote: On 13/10/2018 20:43, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I understand how antenna work and how to predict performance. I can even do it without 4NEC2 or other antenna modeling program. For example, the uglier the antenna, the better it works. Antennas that are more expensive, bigger, and in violation of local building ordinances, work the best. Experimental prototype antennas always work while the production versions never seem to work as well. If there are two ways to assemble an antenna, the wrong way will have higher gain, lower VSWR, or both. High gain, small size, or wide bandwidth; pick any two. Using these rules of thumb and others, anyone can predict how well an antenna will perform by inspection and without using computer models, Smith charts, or tedious calculations. WHS Thou shalt not abrev. What does WHS mean? There has been much talk on UKRA in the recent past about the merits or otherwise of various makes and models of VNAs. It's my view that the point of having an Amateur licence is to be able to transmit signals intended to be received by another station. One of the alleged virtues of a VNA is to be able to set up one's aerial system. However, I maintain that using cheap torch bulbs is an equally valid indicator of the state of tune of one's station, and that a distant station cannot tell the difference between a system set up with the aid of a VNA and one set up with the aid of a torch bulb or two. In a past life (1970's), I used to design marine radios and antennas. At the time, my weapon of choice was the HP4815A vector impedance meter: https://www.google.com/search?q=hp4815a&tbm=isch No fancy display, no pretty graphs, no Smith chart display. Just accurate numbers for the HF bands. I used it for everything that needed impedance matching, including antennas. If you're thinking of buying one, make sure that it includes the probe kit. It's useless without the probe kit. http://electropuces.pagesperso-orange.fr/Photos/HP4193.jpg One of my ace technicians had a different way of doing RF. During the day, he would use the best test equipment that the company could afford. After hours, he would work on his own radios. However, instead of using proper test equipment, he would literally tune for maximum into a light bulb. I was disgusted, tried to help, but failed. He insisted that a light bulb was "good enough". It took me a while to decode what was happening. Anyone can produce a workable antenna using primitive techniques. By workable, I mean minimally functional and generally usable. For at time, I was building matching networks for using an aluminum step ladder as a VHF directional antenna. It worked, but improvements beyond minimally functional were difficult. So, why bother with all the fancy test equipment (VNA) if a light bulb will do as well? Because with the fancy test equipment will squeeze the last few decibels of performance out the antenna while the light bulb is unlikely to do the same. If minimally acceptable is your standard of excellence, then please continue using a light bulb for tuning antennas. However, if you want to get all the performance possible, then you'll need some fancy test equipment. What was happening with my tech was that he did not want to expend the time learning how to properly operate, understand, and analyze the output from the fancy test equipment. While I consider this close to sacrilege in a production environment, to someone just trying to get his radio or antenna on the air, it's sufficient. If I light bulb got him close enough to a working system, and didn't require any time to study, it was "good enough". Some of the local hams are very much into DX, contesting, and EME. To be successful, one has to have a very efficient radio system with everything optimized to the best possible performance. Everything has to be optimized for the best possible performance. One can't do that with a light bulb. Since your view of ham radio is "to be able to transmit signals intended to be received by another station", you don't need a VNA to do that. An antenna tuner and a random length of wire will suffice. However, if you plan to do more than that, some test equipment might be useful. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
a little 4nec2 help? | Antenna | |||
Anybody tried 4nec2 on Vista ? | Antenna | |||
New 4nec2 version | Antenna | |||
4nec2 and linux ?? | Antenna | |||
4nec2 question | Antenna |