Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.67.23.138 with SMTP id ia10csp76598pad; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.160.240 with SMTP id xn16mr10773738wib.62.1380482172769; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id nb15si3222133wic.28.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VQMB5-0000rb-12 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:57:11 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VQMB4-0000rS-Jj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:57:10 +0100 Received: from smtpout5.wanadoo.co.uk ([80.12.242.80] helo=smtpout.wanadoo.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1VQMB1-0006me-Uh for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:57:09 +0100 Received: from AGB ([2.31.68.47]) by mwinf5d63 with ME id X6x61m01B11BFyy036x6oY; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 20:57:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Graham" To: References: <524864BC.60908@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <6C620201432A459BBD435B0ADFA16DD3@gnat> <524870EB.3090708@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <524870EB.3090708@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 19:57:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Ha Alan is making a technical point ... : 0,) From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:26 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: Re: HF SWR meters on MF? [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.12.242.80 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Scan-Signature: 8556389a5ea14fbbf9b9d801ab70c592 Subject: Re: LF: Re: HF SWR meters on MF? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type=response 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_OUTLOOK_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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2774 Ha Alan is making a technical point ... : 0,) -------------------------------------------------- From: "Stefan Schäfer" Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:26 PM To: Subject: Re: LF: Re: HF SWR meters on MF? > Does it not? > I suggest to do a test: Use a MF antenna (on 160m, for this test), > resonate it to the TX frequency by using a variometer. Then use a ferrite > transformer to match the impedance to 50 Ohm. > > Insert the SWR meter (i'm using this one for HF: > http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/swr-meter.jpg (you can find the > words "SWR" and "meter" on the instrument) into the signal path. > > I bet it will show something close to 1:1. The detune the variometer (i.e. > add a significant reactive component to the feed point impedance) so that > the resonance is lost. I bet that the reflected power will rise > dramatically. Then i interprete that the SWR meter tells me that i have > lost the resonance, since the ratio of the transformer didn't change. > Sure, there could be a change of the earth losses which cause a change of > the resistive component of the impedance. This will result in a change of > the SWR as well. But these changes are small compared to the possible > change of the reactive part, especially on MF and LF... > > 73, Stefan > > > Am 29.09.2013 20:02, schrieb Alan Melia: >> er ......an SWR "meter" will tell you nothing about resonance :-)) >> Alan >> G3NYK >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Schäfer" >> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:34 PM >> Subject: LF: HF SWR meters on MF? >> >> >>> Hi MF, >>> >>> Did someone try to use a normal HF SWR meter on 630m? They are >>> specificated down to 1800 kHz of course but what about 472 kHz? >>> >>> At least it would be good to get some indication that: >>> >>> -There is some output power (e.g. when using an IC706) >>> -One is coming closer to resonance >>> -Impedance is/comes close to 50 Ohm >>> >>> I'm supporting a new potential MF RX station with limited equipment (no >>> oscilloscope...)... >>> >>> >>> 73, Stefan/DK7FC >>> >> >> >