Base MEter Readings

[Gunner357]

Obviously I know this one SWR 1:1
(Z) 56.3 ohms
(R) 56.3 ohms
(X) 2.1 ohms
(RL) 24 DB
PHASE 18.0 q
(L) 13.4 nH
(C) -2.5 nF
Anyone know these figures? Are they OK?

 

[The DB]

The stats that most people care about are R which is Impedance, and X which is Reactance. An X of 0 is Resonance. Together R and X make up what is known as Complex Impedance, generally written as R±jX. Explaining their relationship can get complicated from this point.

The Z is actually referred to as "The magnitude of Z" and is properly written as |Z|, although many antenna analyzers just use the letter.. Together with the phase angle (or "PHASE" from above) is another way of getting to the same point as R and X written about above, and is simply another way of writing out the Complex Impedance. Most people in the hobby world don't use these.

RL is return loss. What this represents is the amount of signal that was transmitted that did not make it back to the measuring device, essentially the loss of the signal, and it is always represented as -dB. Many people make the mistake of this "return loss" as being how much of the signal was radiated, which isn't completely false, but they often don't consider that this is also factoring in losses in the antenna system. If your Return Loss goes up, it could be an increase in either of both, and likewise if it goes down it could be a decrease in either or both. Just like lower SWR does not necessarily mean your antenna is performing better, a greater Return Loss does not necessarily your antenna is performing better. It is heavily influenced by SWR, and is considered by many to be just another way to show what SWR is showing. This can be useful for things like measuring the losses of a run of coax and such if you know how.

L is inductance, or the measurement of a coil, and is measured in Henrys, which is H for short. In the list you gave, nH would be nanoHenrys, which is 0.0000000001 of a henry.

C is capacitance, essentially the capacitor version of L above and is measured in Farads. Again nF is nanoFarad, and is as nanoHenry above.

At first glance, I don't see anything significantly wrong with what you have posted. Some people would tell you to get X to 0, but you won't notice a difference in performance from where you are now if you do that.

Do you have any questions on any of this?


The DB

 

[Gunner357]

The stats that most people care about are R which is Impedance, and X which is Reactance. An X of 0 is Resonance. Together R and X make up what is known as Complex Impedance, generally written as R±jX. Explaining their relationship can get complicated from this point.

The Z is actually referred to as "The magnitude of Z" and is properly written as |Z|, although many antenna analyzers just use the letter.. Together with the phase angle (or "PHASE" from above) is another way of getting to the same point as R and X written about above, and is simply another way of writing out the Complex Impedance. Most people in the hobby world don't use these.

RL is return loss. What this represents is the amount of signal that was transmitted that did not make it back to the measuring device, essentially the loss of the signal, and it is always represented as -dB. Many people make the mistake of this "return loss" as being how much of the signal was radiated, which isn't completely false, but they often don't consider that this is also factoring in losses in the antenna system. If your Return Loss goes up, it could be an increase in either of both, and likewise if it goes down it could be a decrease in either or both. Just like lower SWR does not necessarily mean your antenna is performing better, a greater Return Loss does not necessarily your antenna is performing better. It is heavily influenced by SWR, and is considered by many to be another way to show what SWR is showing. This can be useful for things like measuring the losses of a run of coax and such if you know how.

L is inductance, or the measurement of a coil, and is measured in Henrys, which is H for short. In the list you gave, nH would be nanoHenrys, which is 0.0000000001 of a henry.

C is capacitance, essentially the capacitor version of L above and is measured in Farads. Again nF is nanoFarad, and is as nanoHenry above.

At first glance, I don't see anything significantly wrong with what you have posted. Some people would tell you to get X to 0, but you won't notice a difference in performance from where you are now if you do that.

Do you have any questions on any of this?


The DB

Thanks for the reply and what are the targets for each of those? I know the SWR lol

 

[Eldorado828]

I'm getting out a pen and pad because I need schooled on this too. I'll be using a rigexpert and need to learn how to properly use it. I've always tuned with a simple swr meter but this brings a whole new light on things.

 

[Gunner357]

I'm getting out a pen and pad because I need schooled on this too. I'll be using a rigexpert and need to learn how to properly use it. I've always tuned with a simple swr meter but this brings a whole new light on things.

Same here I just got the RigExpert AA-230 Zoom and was raised on Realistic and Dosy meters then MFJ259 now the RigExpert

 

[Slowmover]

I'm getting out a pen and pad because I need schooled on this too. I'll be using a rigexpert and need to learn how to properly use it. I've always tuned with a simple swr meter but this brings a whole new light on things.

Had a text suggesting tossing this back with present-situation electoral word substitutions. Using our best inclinations against us circa 1962. Now it’s coming back around. Funny.

Always was a catchy version.

You get that Radio tuned, and:

I’ll hit US-287 coming out of Fort Worth heading towards the Armadillo . . .
and navigate via your radio beacon.

Winding out those gears!

(I need the same schooling)

 

[The DB]

Thanks for the reply and what are the targets for each of those? I know the SWR lol

That is actually a difficult question to answer. You will note that it has been unanswered on what is to my knowledge the most technical hobby forum around for over a day now.

If SWR is what you care about, you try and get R as close to 50 as you can, and get X as close to 0 as you can.

Some people like to get reactance to be as low as possible instead, which is X = 0 no matter what R is because X = 0 means "Resonance". While this sounds good at first glance, I have never actually seen any evidence that supports this, in fact, I have rarely seen peak gain line up with either SWR or Resonance. I will say this though, this method will almost always get you closer to peak performance.

When operating, you will not notice a difference in performance between these two methods, so take your pick. I don't fault anyone for using either of these.

However, if you are specifically looking for peak performance, you are using the wrong tool. The fact of the matter is, the only way to tune your antenna system for peak performance is to use an external device like a field strength meter, and don't waste your time with an s-meter, they simply aren't accurate enough. Even using such a device, you will almost never notice a real world difference between using a field strength meter and the methods mentioned above.

Beyond here, it gets very complex very fast.


The DB

 

[DoctorAudio]

The fact of the matter is, the only way to tune your antenna system for peak performance is to use an external device like a field strength meter,

The DB

And even then you need to measure the field strength at least 10 wavelengths away (far field) to know what's happening in the real world.

 

[Gunner357]

That is actually a difficult question to answer. You will note that it has been unanswered on what is to my knowledge the most technical hobby forum around for over a day now.

If SWR is what you care about, you try and get R as close to 50 as you can, and get X as close to 0 as you can.

Some people like to get reactance to be as low as possible instead, which is X = 0 no matter what R is because X = 0 means "Resonance". While this sounds good at first glance, I have never actually seen any evidence that supports this, in fact, I have rarely seen peak gain line up with either SWR or Resonance. I will say this though, this method will almost always get you closer to peak performance.

When operating, you will not notice a difference in performance between these two methods, so take your pick. I don't fault anyone for using either of these.

However, if you are specifically looking for peak performance, you are using the wrong tool. The fact of the matter is, the only way to tune your antenna system for peak performance is to use an external device like a field strength meter, and don't waste your time with an s-meter, they simply aren't accurate enough. Even using such a device, you will almost never notice a real world difference between using a field strength meter and the methods mentioned above.

Beyond here, it gets very complex very fast.


The DB

wow ok lol that flow over me like a war-bird thank you

 

[Slowmover]

And even then you need to measure the field strength at least 10 wavelengths away (far field) to know what's happening in the real world.

A 360-degree, 360’ out from a Mobile Installation
To start on 11-Meter. Okay. (Not snark).

Looks like (correct my wording) one uses an FSM to measure (relative) signal strength from a fixed location to tune an antenna to greatest radiation.

I’m going to figure (11-Meter) one could use a wavelength multiple (36.25’ approx) to set that distance. From the meter to the antenna (maybe it doesn’t matter; looking to be thorough so have Geek Hat pulled down tight in writing this).

At any rate; an open field free from “obstructions”.

A quick search brought up the
MFJ-802b (available w/w-o remote head)



Were I by myself and using the remote head, I’d guess some form of stand to get the reading instrument to a reasonable height would be called for. But itself not introduce problems.

Suggestions on using remote head?

.

 

[Eldorado828]

That is actually a difficult question to answer. You will note that it has been unanswered on what is to my knowledge the most technical hobby forum around for over a day now.

If SWR is what you care about, you try and get R as close to 50 as you can, and get X as close to 0 as you can.

Some people like to get reactance to be as low as possible instead, which is X = 0 no matter what R is because X = 0 means "Resonance". While this sounds good at first glance, I have never actually seen any evidence that supports this, in fact, I have rarely seen peak gain line up with either SWR or Resonance. I will say this though, this method will almost always get you closer to peak performance.

When operating, you will not notice a difference in performance between these two methods, so take your pick. I don't fault anyone for using either of these.

However, if you are specifically looking for peak performance, you are using the wrong tool. The fact of the matter is, the only way to tune your antenna system for peak performance is to use an external device like a field strength meter, and don't waste your time with an s-meter, they simply aren't accurate enough. Even using such a device, you will almost never notice a real world difference between using a field strength meter and the methods mentioned above.

Beyond here, it gets very complex very fast.


The DB

That's definitely a step in the right direction of some understanding for me so it's much appreciate. So I finally got to purchase a rig expert AA-54 and just in playing with it I see it's really cool to see the swr curve but the rest of the information at first glance is Chinese to me so your answers helps a lot. I'll have to admit I'm completely ignorant so the device to me is only as good as I know hot to use it. It's a pretty loaded little device and with a little learning I'm sure hoping to use it to full advantage.

 

[Gunner357]

That's definitely a step in the right direction of some understanding for me so it's much appreciate. So I finally got to purchase a rig expert AA-54 and just in playing with it I see it's really cool to see the swr curve but the rest of the information at first glance is Chinese to me so your answers helps a lot. I'll have to admit I'm completely ignorant so the device to me is only as good as I know hot to use it. It's a pretty loaded little device and with a little learning I'm sure hoping to use it to full advantage.

Yeah I got the AA230 Zoom and Im the same way IE: Smith Chart WTH is a Smith Chart lol

 

[hotrod]

my wilson 5k mag mount reads as foolw .. x=0 R= 76 ..would you guys consider this tuned for max peak performance?? R and X dont move much at all with frequencey. or even moving whip up or down . 3 or 4 numbers on R 2or 3 on X. .. whip has not been cut or altered

 

[The DB]

IE: Smith Chart WTH is a Smith Chart lol

Its a very useful tool, but most people have trouble learning how to use it. For most things you can accomplish with it, its the "easier" method. Note, the word in quotes, "easier" does not necessarily mean "easy".

Those in the hobby that you may occasionally see using it either have engineering training, or have pushed their own knowledge to the point of learning certain aspects of the engineering side of the hobby.

If you want to learn how to use smith charts, a book called Reflections by M. Walter Maxwell has a chapter that is the easiest to understand primer for a layperson I have seen yet. The books he put out later called Reflections 2 and Reflections 3 also include this chapter.

I've used one once in the past on this forum to try and explain a certain aspect of the Gainmaster Antenna, but I think for most people it only caused more confusion. Because of this there are very few times I will use one when trying to explain something.


The DB

 

[Slowmover]