Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1481; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id uA2JtEPe025662 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:55:14 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1c21Zm-0003Fe-2k for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:51:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1c21Zl-0003FU-AX for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:51:57 +0000 Received: from smtp1web.tin.it ([212.216.176.195]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1c21Zi-0001Vi-53 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 19:51:56 +0000 Received: from feu11 (10.192.64.21) by smtp1web.tin.it (8.6.060.43) id 58047486005A773D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:51:53 +0100 Received: from (82.54.199.177) by wmlighttin.pc.tim.it; Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:51:53 +0100 Message-ID: <158269908ce.marcocadeddu@tin.it> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:51:53 +0100 (CET) From: "marcocadeddu@tin.it" To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: 82.54.199.177 X-Scan-Signature: 3f8d74a8c70dd416d0a3a1dbcb9bb89f Subject: R: LF: Re: SWR Bridges Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Content-Length: 1642 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9354 Hi Steve, wish to add just one comment sharing with you my experience. For routine tests or measures on antennas since almost a dozen of years use an home made VNA (I realized the N2PK VNA and still works fine!) this make available visual and numerical datas which very important to understand what I'm doing. As everybody, of course, I like to have an instrument in line while transmitting just to see is everything is "normal" and under control. For this purpose I made a small console which includes the low pass filter, an RF ammeter and an SWR bridge is very easy to design and make yourself such instrument I made mine covering from 137kHz to 160m and I guess it is reliable at least as all "in line" meters. 73 de Marco IK1HSS ----Messaggio originale---- Da: VE7SL@shaw.ca Data: 2-nov-2016 19.12 A: Ogg: LF: Re: SWR Bridges Many thanks to all of those taking the time to reply to my inquiry. It seems that results vary depending upon what meter is being used but it sounds as though only a few are having reliable / accurate results. I normally use the scope match and call it the 'most valuable piece of gear in my shack' but was curious about suggesting the use of an HF SWR bridge for those that do not yet have such a thing, and if it would be a reliable method of matching an antenna. In some cases 'yes', but it seems, in most cases, may be unreliable and only lead to confusion. Steve 73 WEB - "The VE7SL Radio Notebook": http://members.shaw.ca/ve7sl VE7SL BLOG - "Homebrewing and Operating Adventures From 2200m to Nanowaves": http://ve7sl.blogspot.ca/