Which is the best amateur-band automatic antenna tuner made, for use
with a 160-meter inverted V with open wire feeders, to cover 160
through 6 meters?

Also, is there much perceptible difference in performance, loss,
signal strength, etc. between the best of the best and the ones that
are only average in quality, assuming that both will properly tune the
antenna?

"C. J. Clegg" wrote

Which is the best amateur-band automatic antenna tuner made, for use
with a 160-meter inverted V with open wire feeders, to cover 160
through 6 meters?

Most ATU's could tune your rain gutter with about equally bad performance
that you would get on any single antenna that you asked to service that
entire bandwidth.

Also, is there much perceptible difference in performance, loss,
signal strength, etc. between the best of the best and the ones that
are only average in quality, assuming that both will properly tune the
antenna?

I have never read reviews that compared them against each other.
http://www.eham.net/reviews/ will display the comments you're looking for.
After eight months of use, I am completely pleased with my MFJ-994 600w ATU.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:28:06 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Most ATU's could tune your rain gutter with about equally bad performance
that you would get on any single antenna that you asked to service that
entire bandwidth.

Good morning, Jack.

Well, that's not entirely true I don't think ... it's probably true
enough when referring to a physically-short antenna that you're trying
to extend well beyond its range, but I have a 160-meter inverted vee
fed with an open wire line that works very, very well on 160 through
10 (haven't tried it on 6 yet because my manual tuner won't go that
far).

Thanks for the eham.net link, I'll check it out.

CJ

I have owned a few different autotuners. They are a great convenience,
but not without some cost in performance. The reviews I have seen on
the efficiency of autotuners can be depressing. In fact, I have seen
insertion loss figures as high as 65% on some bands and some crazy
impedances.
I think this is due to the use of toroids and fixed capacitors in
autotuners. A good efficient tuner usually has high Q air inductors
and well made variables. Maybe that explains it, maybe not. However,
they sure do work nice! I used an old SGC at the feedpoint of a 30
foot homebrew vertical. It was a kicker on all bands from 160 through
6 meters! Now, that of course is my own anecdotal experience, and the
antenna may have been inefficient as hell, but it got me on the air and
I got out real well. I have also used autouners on random wires and
such, and again they work well. But expect to lose a fair amount of
power.

In article . com,
" wrote:

I have owned a few different autotuners. They are a great convenience,
but not without some cost in performance. The reviews I have seen on
the efficiency of autotuners can be depressing. In fact, I have seen
insertion loss figures as high as 65% on some bands and some crazy
impedances.
I think this is due to the use of toroids and fixed capacitors in
autotuners. A good efficient tuner usually has high Q air inductors
and well made variables. Maybe that explains it, maybe not. However,
they sure do work nice! I used an old SGC at the feedpoint of a 30
foot homebrew vertical. It was a kicker on all bands from 160 through
6 meters! Now, that of course is my own anecdotal experience, and the
antenna may have been inefficient as hell, but it got me on the air and
I got out real well. I have also used autouners on random wires and
such, and again they work well. But expect to lose a fair amount of
power.

hollycow batman, 65&loss thru the tuner geeewiz i always assumed they
were not totally eff even manual tuners have loss never ever woulda
guessed that bad

think i need to buy some testing gear and see for myself how bad mine
are hope i am not loosing that much

You ain't losing anywhere near that much,, unless it are broke!
Butch KF5DE

ml wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:


I have owned a few different autotuners. They are a great convenience,
but not without some cost in performance. The reviews I have seen on
the efficiency of autotuners can be depressing. In fact, I have seen
insertion loss figures as high as 65% on some bands and some crazy
impedances.
I think this is due to the use of toroids and fixed capacitors in
autotuners. A good efficient tuner usually has high Q air inductors
and well made variables. Maybe that explains it, maybe not. However,
they sure do work nice! I used an old SGC at the feedpoint of a 30
foot homebrew vertical. It was a kicker on all bands from 160 through
6 meters! Now, that of course is my own anecdotal experience, and the
antenna may have been inefficient as hell, but it got me on the air and
I got out real well. I have also used autouners on random wires and
such, and again they work well. But expect to lose a fair amount of
power.


hollycow batman, 65&loss thru the tuner geeewiz i always assumed they
were not totally eff even manual tuners have loss never ever woulda
guessed that bad

think i need to buy some testing gear and see for myself how bad mine
are hope i am not loosing that much

Again, the high insertion loss is with autotuners into a huge mismatch
on some bands..seems like the higher bands from what I have read.
I don't know this for a fact, only what I read in some reviews along
the way. I think I saw a QST product review or 2 that spec'd this
loss.
The 65% was worse case senario. But the insertion loss was always
higher than a good manual tuner.

ml wrote:
hollycow batman, 65&loss thru the tuner geeewiz i always assumed they
were not totally eff even manual tuners have loss never ever woulda
guessed that bad

A short mobile whip might have a feedpoint impedance of 2-j1500 ohms
yet an SGC-230 will load it just fine. 65% loss (or more) seems
understandable under those circumstances.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Which is the best amateur-band automatic antenna tuner made, for use
with a 160-meter inverted V with open wire feeders, to cover 160
through 6 meters?

That's a good question C.J.. I doubt that you will find anyone here that has
gotten their hands on all the automatic antenna tuners offered for sale, and
done extensive testing on a 160 meter inverted vee on 160 to 6 meters.

Also, is there much perceptible difference in performance, loss,
signal strength, etc. between the best of the best and the ones that
are only average in quality, assuming that both will properly tune the
antenna?

Once again, who would have actual experience that could report on this? Seems
like QST compared some auto tuners a while back, and there are product reviews
by users on qsl.net. These are not all inclusive.
I have several automatic and manual tuners, both commercial and homebrew that
I use in a variety of applications. The ones that work the best on an antenna
like you describe are the manual ones with the roller inductors and HV variable
caps. They will match a larger impedance range and handle power. The auto
tuners are rated for 100 watts, (except for the HB one) and have a more limited
matching range. I would make my decision based on the power handling
capability of the tuner.
Another thing, Ham antenna tuners generally don't perform well above 15
meters, with a large antenna like you have. (stray L and C in the tuner). The
radiation pattern is like a squashed spider. Be better off using a simple (and
small) dipole on 17, 12, 10 and 6m.
73 Gary N4AST