As I said, QST published it as an "article", although
you could argue that they should have called it a
product review. That is why you did not find it under
product reviews. Try November 2006, page 28.
Rick N6RK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Keith Dutson
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:09 AM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] impedance meter recommendations pse
>
>
> What issue of QST? Is it a product review? I could not find it
> in the A's
> under product reviews.
>
> 73, Keith NM5G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard (Rick)
> Karlquist
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:24 AM
> To: Jim Lux; Telegrapher9@aol.com; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] impedance meter recommendations pse
>
> Anyone interested in this topic should read the recent QST article on the
> AIM-4170 antenna analyzer.
> The article has a shoot out of this unit vs other ham units and even an
> Agilent NA. It is a true vector analyzer with a narrowband
> receiver. Most
> other analyzers are scalar analyzers that use the "3 voltmeter method" to
> determine phase angle (which is why they can't determine sign) and use a
> broadband detector, which is susceptable to BC interference. The N2PK
> design is similar, but you have to homebrew it, AFAIK.
>
> I have purchased one of these and am evaluating it.
> I will report on it on the reflector after I have some experience with it.
>
> BTW, I work for Agilent and am currently designing a new Agilent network
> analyzer, so I have more than a casual interest in these units.
>
> Rick N6RK
>
>
>
> > At 08:29 PM 12/27/2006, Telegrapher9@aol.com wrote:
> > >Has anyone here had good results from any of the non-MFJ
> > impedance meters? I
> > >have an MFJ-259 and 269 and they are handy to have but not very
> > >accurate in my experience. I have made lab measurements against these
> > >and the
> > results are
> > >not as good as I'd like.
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|