Return-Path: Received: from rly-db10.mx.aol.com (rly-db10.mail.aol.com [172.19.130.85]) by air-db03.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDB031-aef49288312115; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:09:38 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-db10.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDB105-aef49288312115; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:09:23 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1L40f0-00070K-Jt for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:09:02 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1L40f0-00070B-5o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:09:02 +0000 Received: from mailout08.t-online.de ([194.25.134.20]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L40ez-0002HI-Ca for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:09:02 +0000 Received: from fwd04.aul.t-online.de by mailout08.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1L40ew-0008QB-00; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:08:58 +0100 Received: from [192.168.2.22] (Gt2ddvZlgh-nB7JRhMtzk4gdAkWQZ4w+HwuneynNJ4eW25JN7PkRT38XMMquFZEQfY@[217.95.80.220]) by fwd04.t-online.de with esmtp id 1L40ev-2Awc3U0; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:08:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: hajo.brandt.dj1zb@t-online.de References:<773788.70125.qm@web86501.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <49286671.1070303@ukonline.co.uk> In-Reply-To:<49286671.1070303@ukonline.co.uk> To: X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 6.06.0002 Date: 22 Nov 2008 22:08 GMT Message-ID: <1L40ev-2Awc3U0@fwd04.t-online.de> X-ID: Gt2ddvZlgh-nB7JRhMtzk4gdAkWQZ4w+HwuneynNJ4eW25JN7PkRT38XMMquFZEQfY X-TOI-MSGID: 342f5c5d-c6c6-4e9c-89a1-d969c498af1d X-Karma: -140: lashback.ubl=-140.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: More on Admittance Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 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-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Dear Peter, I am using a home brew antenna bridge in which variable R and C are in parallel. This bridge is about 20 years old, and one reason for this parallel arrangement has been that at the time of construction all potentiometers available on the market had a metal case, and the capacity of the case is in parallel to the resistance. In the parallel arrangement this does not matter and can even be compensated, but in the series arrangement the case capacity is especially troublesome at high frequencies and when the resistance is set at high values. This may have also been a reason for W6SAI to recommend a parallel arrangement for homebrewers. Today there are potentiometers with plastic cases on the market (which in the past may have been special components for bridges only). In high impedance amplifiers they may be worse because of lack of screening. But for building bridges I would like to try them if I felt the need to design a new one. I am usually looking for reactance measurements, not admittance. In this case measurement results in general (not me, I like to think in parallel values) want to be obtained in the form of R and X in series (Rs and Xs). When using a bridge in the parallel arrangement results are originally in Rp and Xp (or Rp and +pF or -pF as in my calibration), and they have to be converted to Rs and Xs. This is not necessary when using a bridge in the series arrangement. This has been my position so far concerning measuring with bridges. HW? 73 Ha-Jo, DJ1ZB "Peter Dodd" schrieb: > Hi Alan, > Thanks for the information. Most noise bridges use serial variable > resistance and reactance bridges but there is a circuit of a bridge > using a parallel arrangement in the W6SAI radio Handbook although it > doesn't say what the advantage of such an arrangement is. > > Regards > > Peter, G3LDO > > Hi Peter I think it more due to the fact that commercial bridges and meters really want to cover the widest range. There is obviously a problem with serial connected reactances when one is very much larger than the other. Then the nulls on bridges become shallow and ill defined. If you use a parallel arrangement this is not a problem. For most Amateur aerial cases you can get away with serial connection because there is not the need for the wide range needed for laboratory equipment.....10^3 compared with maybe 10^6. > > > > Alan G3NYK > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 19/11/08, Peter Dodd wrote: > > > > > >> From: Peter Dodd > >> Subject: LF: More on Admittance > >> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > >> Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008, 6:55 PM > >> Many thanks to those who responded to my question regarding > >> an > >> Admittance to Impedance converter. > >> I have a further question. Since most of the measurements > >> we make on > >> antennas and transmission line require the answer in term > >> of impedance > >> why are there so many commercial instruments calibrated in > >> units of > >> Admittance, particularly at VHF and UHF. I suspect that it > >> is because it > >> is easier to make accurate variable bridge standards if > >> they use a > >> parallel arrangement; is this true > >> Regards > >> > >> Peter, G3LDO > >> > >> > >> > >>> The best program (as far as I am concerned) is called > >>> > >> Z-Y Converter, > >> > >>> which was sent to me by Rik Strobbe. > >>> It came direct because it gave the reflector > >>> > >> indigestion although it > >> > >>> is only 160KB. > >>> I was given a General Radio 1602-B Admittance Meter as > >>> > >> a pre Christmas > >> > >>> present, which is calibrated in millimhos, which I > >>> > >> guess is the same > >> > >>> as millisiemens. > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >