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

"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

Hi Darrell
guru, schmuru
you will find the gamut of experience and education here, though
as well as some amazing flame wars
I have the MFJ with 450 and it works OK
Only measures SWR on 450.
It's not a laboratory instrument, but I have used it for years and it gets
the job done.
Priceless for setting up the HF mobile.
I have no comparative experience except with an old General Radio bridge in
my AM radio days decades ago.
73
H.
NQ5H

I have an MFJ 269 and a GR 1606A. Each has its place.

At my location, about 10-15 miles from a hilltop with powerful TV, FM,
and I believe AM broadcast transmitters, the MFJ is pretty useless for
most antenna measurements. The impinging RF confuses it. It's great for
fiddling with circuits on the bench, quick measurements of coax length,
and checking the resonance of a 2 meter whip. I'm sure the RF problem
would be the same for the other analyzers. Years ago, I rented an HP
vector impedance meter for a consulting job, and it too was unable to
handle the RF environment. A friend lent me an ancient tube-type Z meter
that had a tunable detector, and I ended up making the measurements with
it. (That was before I got the 1606A.)

I use the 1606A when I need to make serious and accurate antenna
measurements. It's tedious to use, having to be calibrated at the
measurement frequency before making measurements. It only goes up to 60
MHz. And it requires an external signal generator and detector. The
external detector is really its strength, though, since by using a
narrowband detector (I use an old ICOM R1 portable receiver) I can make
good measurements in the RF environment I live in. It would be a real
nuisance to haul it up a tower, although you can put it on top of a
stepladder.

Sorry, I haven't used any of the other analyzers so can't help you out
with the comparison between them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Darrell Gordon W4CX wrote:

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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:26:54 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:

I have an MFJ 269 and a GR 1606A. Each has its place.

At my location, about 10-15 miles from a hilltop with powerful TV, FM,
and I believe AM broadcast transmitters, the MFJ is pretty useless for
most antenna measurements. The impinging RF confuses it. It's great for
fiddling with circuits on the bench, quick measurements of coax length,
and checking the resonance of a 2 meter whip. I'm sure the RF problem
would be the same for the other analyzers. Years ago, I rented an HP
vector impedance meter for a consulting job, and it too was unable to
handle the RF environment. A friend lent me an ancient tube-type Z meter
that had a tunable detector, and I ended up making the measurements with
it. (That was before I got the 1606A.)

I use the 1606A when I need to make serious and accurate antenna
measurements. It's tedious to use, having to be calibrated at the
measurement frequency before making measurements. It only goes up to 60
MHz. And it requires an external signal generator and detector. The
external detector is really its strength, though, since by using a
narrowband detector (I use an old ICOM R1 portable receiver) I can make
good measurements in the RF environment I live in. It would be a real
nuisance to haul it up a tower, although you can put it on top of a
stepladder.

Sorry, I haven't used any of the other analyzers so can't help you out
with the comparison between them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

It's gratifying to learn that the 'ole 1606 is still being used by people in the
group. About ten years ago I wondered what I'd do if anything happened to mine,
especially since General Radio was already out of business, so I found a 1606-B
for $400 as a backup. Son Rick, WB4GNR, is using it, but it's still my backup.

Walt, W2DU

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.

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

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

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

"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

Dear Roy:
Very interesting!
It just did not occur to me to test. Now that the EMC book I have
been helping with is finally being printed (over ten years in the
crafting) I shall put an appraisal of the AEA on our list of activities.
It occurs to me that almost all of my use of the instrument has been
below about 10 MHz. At those frequencies, my suspicions probably were
not tripped by a discrepancy of half a degree (or smaller).
I did buy the instrument after at least one change of hands.
Thank you very much for the heads-up. I am shaking my head in
wonder that that property I never thought to check.
Warm regards, Mac N8TT
--
J. Mc Laughlin - Michigan USA
Home:

"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