|
On the thread "...Making a Q meter": On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote: if you look at the description of the group
/g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements. I have successfully made measurements in the past utilizing Tektronix 2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested in less costly ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard. In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to me. I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation between the tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground reflections, for electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC amplifiers, are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable for accurate comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and "B" comparisons. Anyone have something to offer on the subject? Ray, W4BYG -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
Hi Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on using a spectrum analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based on a 50 Ohm input.
--
Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke
axioms:
1. The extent to which you can fix or improve something will be limited by how well you understand how it works.
2. Everybody, with no exceptions, holds false beliefs.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original Message -------- On the thread "...Making a Q meter":
On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote:
if you look at the description of the group
/g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements.
I have successfully made measurements in the past utilizing Tektronix 2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested in less costly ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard.
In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to me.
I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation between the tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground reflections, for electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC amplifiers, are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable for accurate comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and "B" comparisons.
Anyone have something to offer on the subject?
Ray, W4BYG
|
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably the
best way to measure EMF's. Been there done that.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a reasonable
arbitrary log characterization could be established (in dbm or
dbV) with a reference dipole and then switch the feed
to the antenna with supposed gain (or loss)
and use a calibrated attenuator to match the level of the
reference antenna, then read the delta between them on the
attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much
smarter than I. Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke via
groups.io wrote:
Hi
Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on
using a spectrum analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based on
a 50 Ohm input.
--
"If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number.
If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter."
Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably the
best way to measure EMF's. Been there done that. Looking for a
less costly (think cheap), way to do it.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a reasonable
arbitrary log characterization could be established (in dbm or
dbV) with a reference dipole and then switch the feed
to the antenna with supposed gain (or loss)
and use a calibrated attenuator to match the level of the
reference antenna, then read the delta between them on the
attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much
smarter than I. Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke via
groups.io wrote:
Hi
Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on
using a spectrum analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based on
a 50 Ohm input.
--
"If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number.
If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter."
Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
If you had a software defined Radio, could you dig the data out
of it?? No idea about bandwidth or sensitivity, but it might be
sufficiently sensitive depending on the frequency you're
interested in.? As an alternate thought, aren't there some very
inexpensive SA's out there?? Would they be sufficient?
Harvey
On 8/10/2022 6:46 PM, Ray, W4BYG wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably the
best way to measure EMF's. Been there done that.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a
reasonable arbitrary log characterization could be established
(in dbm or dbV) with a reference dipole and then switch the feed to the antenna with
supposed gain (or loss) and use a calibrated attenuator to
match the level of the reference antenna, then read the delta
between them on the attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much
smarter than I. Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke via
groups.io wrote:
Hi
Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on
using a spectrum analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based
on a 50 Ohm input.
--
"If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number.
If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter."
Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
Harvey,
Thanks for your inputs. I have an RspDuo and an Airspy+ . I've
not tried them for a application such as this. I tend to think
one would not be able to resolve enough detail accuracy with an
SDR, but I have not tried it.
As for less costly commercial SA's, (all but the TinySA ($100 or
so, with 2.8" screen)), costs near $1,000, as best I can see.?
Also the specs on what I have seen reveal questionable + and -
amplitude accuracy. Absolute accuracy is not necessary to reveal
any differences between antenna signal levels, but repeatability
is important.
While I have much retirement time on my hands and a some dollars
to play with for parts, the commercial alternative is still a
bit more than I want to spend. I love building and
experimenting.
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 19:26, Harvey White wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
If you had a software defined Radio, could you dig the data out
of it?? No idea about bandwidth or sensitivity, but it might be
sufficiently sensitive depending on the frequency you're
interested in.? As an alternate thought, aren't there some very
inexpensive SA's out there?? Would they be sufficient?
Harvey
On 8/10/2022 6:46 PM, Ray, W4BYG
wrote:
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably
the best way to measure EMF's. Been there done that.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a
reasonable arbitrary log characterization could be
established (in dbm or dbV) with a reference dipole and then
switch the feed to
the antenna with supposed gain (or loss)
and use a calibrated attenuator to match the level of the
reference antenna, then read the delta between them on the
attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much
smarter than I. Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke
via groups.io wrote:
Hi
Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on
using a spectrum analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based
on a 50 Ohm input.
|
Take a look at the RTLSDR dongle.? Cheap
and lots of software available.
?
Paul, W8AEF
?
?
Harvey,
Thanks for your inputs. I have an RspDuo and an Airspy+ . I've not tried them
for a application such as this. I tend to think one would not be able to
resolve enough detail accuracy with an SDR, but I have not tried it.
As for less costly commercial SA's, (all but the TinySA ($100 or so, with
2.8" screen)), costs near $1,000, as best I can see.? Also the specs
on what I have seen reveal questionable + and - amplitude accuracy. Absolute
accuracy is not necessary to reveal any differences between antenna signal
levels, but repeatability is important.
While I have much retirement time on my hands and a some dollars to play with
for parts, the commercial alternative is still a bit more than I want to spend.
I love building and experimenting.
Ray, W4BYG
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/10/2022 19:26, Harvey White wrote:
If you
had a software defined Radio, could you dig the data out of it?? No idea
about bandwidth or sensitivity, but it might be sufficiently sensitive
depending on the frequency you're interested in.? As an alternate thought,
aren't there some very inexpensive SA's out there?? Would they be
sufficient?
Harvey
?
On 8/10/2022 6:46 PM, Ray, W4BYG wrote:
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably the best way to measure
EMF's. Been there done that.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a reasonable arbitrary log
characterization could be established (in dbm or dbV) with a reference dipole
and then switch the feed to the antenna with supposed gain (or loss) and use a
calibrated attenuator to match the level of the reference antenna, then read
the delta between them on the attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much smarter than I.
Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke via groups.io wrote:
Hi Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on using a spectrum
analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based on a 50 Ohm input.
?
?
|
If you buy a SDRPlay, there is free SA software on SDRPlays website.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Aug 10, 2022, at 6:59 PM, Paul via groups.io <w8aef@...> wrote:
?
Take a look at the RTLSDR dongle.? Cheap
and lots of software available.
?
Paul, W8AEF
?
?
Harvey,
Thanks for your inputs. I have an RspDuo and an Airspy+ . I've not tried them
for a application such as this. I tend to think one would not be able to
resolve enough detail accuracy with an SDR, but I have not tried it.
As for less costly commercial SA's, (all but the TinySA ($100 or so, with
2.8" screen)), costs near $1,000, as best I can see.? Also the specs
on what I have seen reveal questionable + and - amplitude accuracy. Absolute
accuracy is not necessary to reveal any differences between antenna signal
levels, but repeatability is important.
While I have much retirement time on my hands and a some dollars to play with
for parts, the commercial alternative is still a bit more than I want to spend.
I love building and experimenting.
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 19:26, Harvey White wrote:
If you
had a software defined Radio, could you dig the data out of it?? No idea
about bandwidth or sensitivity, but it might be sufficiently sensitive
depending on the frequency you're interested in.? As an alternate thought,
aren't there some very inexpensive SA's out there?? Would they be
sufficient?
Harvey
?
On 8/10/2022 6:46 PM, Ray, W4BYG wrote:
Brooke,
Thank you for your comment. I agree using a SA is probably the best way to measure
EMF's. Been there done that.
But it seems that with some of the new chips today. a reasonable arbitrary log
characterization could be established (in dbm or dbV) with a reference dipole
and then switch the feed to the antenna with supposed gain (or loss) and use a
calibrated attenuator to match the level of the reference antenna, then read
the delta between them on the attenuator as gain or loss.
I suspect this has already been done by those that are much smarter than I.
Just trying to find out if it's so...
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 17:24, Brooke Clarke via groups.io wrote:
Hi Ray:
I looked into Measuring EMFs and the best result was based on using a spectrum
analyzer that has calibrated amplitudes based on a 50 Ohm input.
?
?
|
Ray: The TinySA spectrum analyzer may meet your needs. Pocket portable, inexpensive, covers HF thru UHF and beyond. Can detect unmodulated signals. And the linearity may be good enough that you won't have to deal with calibrated attenuators, though of course you can. There is a group.io group at? /g/tinysa?that is owned by the developer. Check in there for the recommendations of where to buy it so you get an original and not a worthless clone. Do you have any ideas for Standard antennas? I think that there might be enough info on the internet to build your own for some frequencies. Never quite got that far myself yet.
|
Have you considered used field intensity meters such as the Eaton 17/27 or 37/57 or an HP 3586A/B/C selective level meter? Paul Koby ka5obi
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 03:16:41 PM CDT, Ray, W4BYG <w4byg@...> wrote:
On the thread "...Making a Q meter":
On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote: > if you look at the description of the group > > /g/Test-Equipment-Design-ConstructionIn reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements. I have successfully made measurements in the past utilizing Tektronix 2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested in less costly ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard. In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to me. I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation between the tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground reflections, for electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC amplifiers, are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable for accurate comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and "B" comparisons. Anyone have something to offer on the subject? Ray, W4BYG -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
The HP 3586A/B/C selective level meter is by far the best instrument measuring data automatically (via HPIB). ? Lester B Veenstra? K1YCM? M?YCM? W8YCM?? 6Y6Y lester@... ? 452 Stable Ln (HC84 RFD USPS Mail) Keyser WV 26726 ? GPS: 39.336826 N? 78.982287 W (Google) GPS: 39.33682 N? 78.9823741 W (GPSDO) ? ? Telephones: Home:?????????????????? ? +1-304-289-6057 US cell??????????????????? +1-304-790-9192 Jamaica cell:?????????? +1-876-456-8898 ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PAUL KOBY
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 4:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Test Equipment Design & Construction] "Electric field strength" measurements?? Have you considered used field intensity meters such as the Eaton 17/27 or 37/57 or an HP 3586A/B/C selective level meter? On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 03:16:41 PM CDT, Ray, W4BYG <w4byg@...> wrote: On the thread "...Making a Q meter":
On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote:
> if you look at the description of the group
>
> /g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction
In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on
relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements.
I have successfully made measurements in the past utilizing Tektronix
2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested in less costly
ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard.
In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to me.
I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation between the
tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground reflections, for
electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC amplifiers,
are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable for accurate
comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and "B" comparisons.
Anyone have something to offer on the subject?
Ray, W4BYG
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 21:15, Ray, W4BYG < w4byg@...> wrote: On the thread "...Making a Q meter":
On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote:
> if you look at the description of the group
>
> /g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction
In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on
relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements.
If it can be measured it's on topic. I just updated the list to exclude things like ghost detectors, but otherwise, any measurement is on topic.?
Anyone have something to offer on the subject?
Ray, W4BYG
?
I did in a former job make field strength measurements where the whole of a passenger plane was considered the antenna - this was an expensive measurement to perform, as the plane had to fly around a mountain for a few hours. We used many tonnes of fuel as jet engines are inefficient at low altitudes. ??????
Not wishing to discourage measurements, but the truth is that modelling tools will be more accurate than measurements in many cases.
Spectrum analyzers are not particularly accurate measuring power. If you look at the calibration instructions for a professional spectrum analyzer, you will see that power meters are used. A measuring receiver is a professional tool for making power measurements at specific frequencies. They are very expensive on the used market. I have never looked, but I doubt that a spectrum analyzer would be used when calibrating a measuring receiver.?
A few random thoughts, on areas that others have not discussed.
One of the things that has always concerned me about antenna measurements is the influence of the cable and support structure. This has got me wondering if the detector should be a small battery powered device on the antenna, which transmits the signal level by optical fibre. The linearity of the detector is irrelevant, as that can be measured separately on a bench. Optical fibre is much lighter than any coax, so for small antennas, which the mass of the antenna is a lot less than the coax, this should allow smaller support structures.
A transmit antenna could have a small battery powered oscillator.?
I recently set up two large metal plates and applied AC from a signal generator to provide a known E field from?
E = V / spacing
I only did this to prove a cheap Chinese meter, which claimed to measure E and H from 20 Hz to 3.5 GHz was a piece of crap. I got a full refund via eBay, as the seller would not pay the return carriage to China.? ? Dave.?
-- Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd, drkirkby@...Telephone 01621-680100./ +44 1621 680100 Registered in England & Wales, company number 08914892. Registered office: Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Althorne, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT, United Kingdom
|
Dear Ray,
I would run some tests on your RSP Duo to check it's accuracy and repeatability.? The Spectrum Analyser software for it can be downloaded from:??
Using a low-cost SDR for logging accurate RF power and SNR measurements can be found here:?
The SDR Console software has an on on screen signal strength logging graph the data from which can be exported to Excel etc.? The Air Spy software also has a logging function.
I check the calibration of mine using a -55 dBm output oscillator and check the settings for RF and IF gain.? If have found it to be accurate and repeatable.
There was an interesting page on the SDRC website about the S meter readings but I cannot find it, this is the nearest:
I use it for Medium Wave measurements, any questions please ask.
Sorry about the bold sections, BOLD stopped working after I copied the RS link.
73, Geoffrey.
|
Hi Group,
When I was working for the local TV station as a transmitter tech for our network. We used a German made TV field strength meter, I can't recall the brand or model. It had a B/W crt on the left and it used a green fluorescent readout of frequency. It was in a brown case, about 15mm high by 300mm wide and ran off a 7Ah battery. We used it with a telescopic element dipole (one for VHF and one for UHF). This came with a calibration chart for antenna efficiency/frequency and a short length of flexible tape measure for setting the elements to the correct length for the frequency of the signal.
If you are only a few wavelength away, then you could probably manage with a simple diode detector. And an antenna similar to one mentioned above (suitably matched to the detector). Calibration would be an issue, but your relative measurements should be consistent. However, if like me, you have several high power transmitters in your vicinity, you may wish to add a passive tuner (or bandpass filter) in front of the diode. (I have five AM stations, 1 - 20KW ERP within 5Km, plus twelve FM stations, of 20KW ERP, two DAB transmitters and five 50KW ERP DTV transmitters within 7Km). I think that an adjustable length dipole would be easier (and cheaper) than a wideband antenna.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of Ray, W4BYG Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 06:16 To: [email protected]Subject: [Test Equipment Design & Construction] "Electric field strength" measurements? On the thread "...Making a Q meter": On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote: if you look at the description of the group
/g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query the group on relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements. I have successfully made measurements in the past utilizing Tektronix 2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested in less costly ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard. In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to me. I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation between the tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground reflections, for electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC amplifiers, are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable for accurate comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and "B" comparisons. Anyone have something to offer on the subject? Ray, W4BYG -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
|
I have a biconical antenna intended for EMC measurements, with a generic sensitivity chart that goes to 1GHz. It was originally supplied by Seaward, a UK company better known for electrician's test tools who briefly offered an EMC test kit. They have sold that part of the business and long forgotten about it.
Unfortunately, although I also have the associated analyser and a much more modern spectrum analyser, I don't have the original cable. This shouldn't be too much of a problem except that it means the sensitivity chart probably assumes an unknown cable loss.?
What I'd like is a calibrated transmitter to provide a reference point (perhaps more than one, for various frequencies). Perhaps just a dipole and a signal generator, if that can provide a known field strength. Such a device might also help Ray.
Can such a thing be made simply and provide a reference from first principles ?
|
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 16:05, Adrian Godwin < artgodwin@...> wrote: I have a biconical antenna intended for EMC measurements, with a generic sensitivity chart that goes to 1GHz. It was originally supplied by Seaward, a UK company better known for electrician's test tools who briefly offered an EMC test kit. They have sold that part of the business and long forgotten about it.
Unfortunately, although I also have the associated analyser and a much more modern spectrum analyser, I don't have the original cable. This shouldn't be too much of a problem except that it means the sensitivity chart probably assumes an unknown cable loss.?
What I'd like is a calibrated transmitter to provide a reference point (perhaps more than one, for various frequencies). Perhaps just a dipole and a signal generator, if that can provide a known field strength. Such a device might also help Ray.
Can such a thing be made simply and provide a reference from first principles ?
Yes - if you are in the far field of an antenna and know
* Antenna gain (G - absolute number, not in dB. This is 1.64 for? a half-wave dipole)
* Distance (m)
* Power accepted by the antenna (so subtract reflected power)
Consider the antenna at the centre of a sphere. The sphere has a radius r. The surface area of the sphere is 4 Pi r^2. So the power density (watt per metre squared) is
Pd = P G / (4 Pi r^2)
The electric field E (V/m), magnetic field H (A/m), and power density W/m^2 are given by
Pd = E H
But E/H is the impedance of free space (around 377 ohm). So yes, you can work it all out from fundamental principles.
Dave
|
Hello!
In July 2022 edition of German magazine Funk amateur, there is an article on how to measure/calculate antenna gain
using? Two-antennas-method and VNA.
My knowledge on the subject is poor, so describing? the article here? is not an good idea.?
But, if you want me to, I can scan the article and send it in individual email.
Warning, as I said, article is in German.
73, Zvone, 9a5b
|
Paul,
Thank you for the suggestions. I'll look into it.
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 16:50, PAUL KOBY wrote:
Have you considered used
field intensity meters such as the Eaton 17/27 or 37/57 or an
HP 3586A/B/C selective level meter?
Paul Koby
ka5obi
On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 03:16:41 PM CDT, Ray,
W4BYG <w4byg@...> wrote:
On the thread "...Making a Q meter":
On 8/10/2022 15:42, Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd
wrote:
> if you look at the description of the group
>
> /g/Test-Equipment-Design-Construction
In reviewing the listed subjects, I would like to query
the group on
relatively simple "Electric field strength" measurements.
I have successfully made measurements in the past
utilizing Tektronix
2700 series spectrum analyzers, but I would be interested
in less costly
ways to compare HF and VHF antennas to a dipole standard.
In my retirement years, I no longer have such available to
me.
I am aware of the need for 5 to 10 wavelengths separation
between the
tested and sampling antennas, as well as ground
reflections, for
electric field tests. Also simple diode detectors with DC
amplifiers,
are seldom linear, nor are the input impedances, reliable
for accurate
comparisons, utilizing a calibrated attenuator for "A" and
"B" comparisons.
Anyone have something to offer on the subject?
Ray, W4BYG
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
--
"If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number.
If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter."
Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
Dave,
Thank you for your inputs.
I have a TinyVNA and I find the super small letters on the 2.8"
screen are very difficult to read, when testing outside. Using
it or the PC computer software inside works fine, but by itself
outside, not so much. If they ever come out with a 4" version of
the SA, maybe that would suffice. They certainly are in the
right price range for HR and hobbyist use.
I don't have the 4" TinyVNA so I don't yet know if that is any
better outside.
Someone on the list may have one and be able to comment on it.
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 18:12, Dave W6OQ via
groups.io wrote:
Ray:
The TinySA spectrum analyzer may meet your needs. Pocket portable,
inexpensive, covers HF thru UHF and beyond. Can detect unmodulated
signals. And the linearity may be good enough that you won't have
to deal with calibrated attenuators, though of course you can.
There is a group.io group at?/g/tinysa?that
is owned by the developer. Check in there for the recommendations
of where to buy it so you get an original and not a worthless
clone.
Do you have any ideas for Standard antennas? I think that there
might be enough info on the internet to build your own for some
frequencies. Never quite got that far myself yet.
--
"If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number.
If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter."
Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
That is why I prefer to do my antenna work
after dark.
?
de Paul, W8AEF
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Ray, W4BYG
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022
9:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Test Equipment
Design & Construction] "Electric field strength" measurements?
?
Dave,
Thank you for your inputs.
I have a TinyVNA and I find the super small letters on the 2.8" screen are
very difficult to read, when testing outside. Using it or the PC computer
software inside works fine, but by itself outside, not so much. If they ever
come out with a 4" version of the SA, maybe that would suffice. They
certainly are in the right price range for HR and hobbyist use.
I don't have the 4" TinyVNA so I don't yet know if that is any better
outside.
Someone on the list may have one and be able to comment on it.
Ray, W4BYG
On 8/10/2022 18:12, Dave W6OQ via groups.io wrote:
Ray:
The TinySA spectrum analyzer may meet your needs. Pocket portable, inexpensive,
covers HF thru UHF and beyond. Can detect unmodulated signals. And the
linearity may be good enough that you won't have to deal with calibrated
attenuators, though of course you can. There is a group.io group at?/g/tinysa?that
is owned by the developer. Check in there for the recommendations of where to
buy it so you get an original and not a worthless clone.
Do you have any ideas for Standard antennas? I think that there might be enough
info on the internet to build your own for some frequencies. Never quite got
that far myself yet.
-- "If you want to build a strong house, I'll give you my engineer's number. If you want to build a strong life, I'll introduce you to my carpenter." ? Lebron and Heather Lackey
|
Ray, W4BYG
Dr. David Kirkby, Kirkby Microwave Ltd