Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 15/10/2018 01:20, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 11:12:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Since you prefer a minimalist approach to test equipment, as an alternative to your light bulb, may I suggest a return loss bridge: https://www.google.com/search?q=return+loss+bridge&tbm=isch Note that there are several basic designs and configurations but all are fairly simple and easy to construct. Note that these are NOT the same as directional couplers. To use it, you need a minimum of an RF signal generator and a voltmeter or oscilloscope. I prefer to sweep the frequency range of interest, so I use an RF sweep generator, and display the result on an oscilloscope. With this arrangement, you can tune your antenna without requiring a light bulb. So, let me get this right. By employing a return-loss bridge, an RF signal generator, and either a voltmeter or an oscilloscope, you can get results that a distant station can't distinguish from those obtained by using a torch bulb? Given your ability to estimate the performance of an antenna by looking at it rather than employ modelling methods, I would have though you would be sympathetic to the merits of the torch bulb approach. -- Spike "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him an internet group to manage" |
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 |