Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
This post may be a bit OT, but I believe this is the forum where I can =
get some useful information. I have an MFJ-259B antenna analyzer which works fine. I also have an = MFJ-269 (the one also working on UHF) which instead gives me odd results = on the HF bands. I then sent the 269 back to MFJ for warranty repair, and when it came = back it had exactly the same problem, despite I gave them a very = detailed explanation of the problem. In summary the problem is the following: - loading the MFJ-269 with 50 ohm all is OK (it gives R=3D50, X=3D0) - loading it with a different value, say a small 200 ohm carbon resistor = with very short leads, it gives R=3D200, X=3D0 at around 10 MHz but, = LOWERING the frequency (e.g. down to 3.5 MHz), it progressively shows an = higher and higher X value. This result is clearly wrong as a resistor = having 0 reactance at 10 MHz cannot show reactance at 3.5 MHz. This is = confirmed by the the fact the MFJ-259 loaded with the same resistor = shows X=3D0 at 3.5 MHz! So, no question about that! Interesting to note that the MFJ-269 Product Review on QST magazine (May = 2005 issue, Table 3) shows EXACTLY the same problem! A 269 design = problem which does not exist in the 259? Reading the MFJ-269 factory calibration procedure (I have a copy of it), = they instruct the operator to adjust the instrument at 10 MHz. And at 10 = MHz it works fine!=20 Has anyone carried out a similar test? Thanks & 73 Tony I0JX (also K0JX when in the US) |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I did some playing with mine after getting it, but didn't see anything like
this. I did pretty much the same things, as I recall. HOWEVER, I did notice that going into the advanced mode and setting it for ZO of 75 ohms that is didn't report SWR correctly (should be 1:1 w/75 ohms attached and it still said 1.5 as though it still was thinking 50 ohms). I called and the "tech" who answered clearly didn't understand (said return it) and I elected to drop it since it worked ok otherwise. I'll try to find some time to re-check this issue. 73, Steve, K9DCI "Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message ... This post may be a bit OT, but I believe this is the forum where I can get some useful information. I have an MFJ-259B antenna analyzer which works fine. I also have an MFJ-269 (the one also working on UHF) which instead gives me odd results on the HF bands. I then sent the 269 back to MFJ for warranty repair, and when it came back it had exactly the same problem, despite I gave them a very detailed explanation of the problem. In summary the problem is the following: - loading the MFJ-269 with 50 ohm all is OK (it gives R=50, X=0) - loading it with a different value, say a small 200 ohm carbon resistor with very short leads, it gives R=200, X=0 at around 10 MHz but, LOWERING the frequency (e.g. down to 3.5 MHz), it progressively shows an higher and higher X value. This result is clearly wrong as a resistor having 0 reactance at 10 MHz cannot show reactance at 3.5 MHz. This is confirmed by the the fact the MFJ-259 loaded with the same resistor shows X=0 at 3.5 MHz! So, no question about that! Interesting to note that the MFJ-269 Product Review on QST magazine (May 2005 issue, Table 3) shows EXACTLY the same problem! A 269 design problem which does not exist in the 259? Reading the MFJ-269 factory calibration procedure (I have a copy of it), they instruct the operator to adjust the instrument at 10 MHz. And at 10 MHz it works fine! Has anyone carried out a similar test? Thanks & 73 Tony I0JX (also K0JX when in the US) |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve,
from what you write I presume you have the 269, not the 259B (which = works fine). As you are the only person who answered me, if you have time could you = please re- check your 269 by loading it with a resistor in the range 150 = to 200 ohm, verifying that the reactance (X) indication remains nearly = zero when varying frequency in range 2 to 10 MHz. The only 269s I know are mine and the one tested by ARRL on QST. And = both of them have a problem. So, if yours does not show that problem, = then I have some hope 73 Tony I0JX "Steve Nosko" ha scritto nel = messaggio ... I did some playing with mine after getting it, but didn't see anything = like this. I did pretty much the same things, as I recall. =20 HOWEVER, I did notice that going into the advanced mode and setting it = for ZO of 75 ohms that is didn't report SWR correctly (should be 1:1 w/75 = ohms attached and it still said 1.5 as though it still was thinking 50 = ohms). I called and the "tech" who answered clearly didn't understand (said = return it) and I elected to drop it since it worked ok otherwise. =20 =20 I'll try to find some time to re-check this issue. =20 73, Steve, K9DCI =20 =20 "Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message ... This post may be a bit OT, but I believe this is the forum where I can = get some useful information. =20 I have an MFJ-259B antenna analyzer which works fine. I also have an = MFJ-269 (the one also working on UHF) which instead gives me odd results on = the HF bands. =20 I then sent the 269 back to MFJ for warranty repair, and when it came = back it had exactly the same problem, despite I gave them a very detailed explanation of the problem. =20 In summary the problem is the following: =20 - loading the MFJ-269 with 50 ohm all is OK (it gives R=3D50, X=3D0) - loading it with a different value, say a small 200 ohm carbon = resistor with very short leads, it gives R=3D200, X=3D0 at around 10 MHz but, = LOWERING the frequency (e.g. down to 3.5 MHz), it progressively shows an higher = and higher X value. This result is clearly wrong as a resistor having 0 reactance at 10 MHz cannot show reactance at 3.5 MHz. This is = confirmed by the the fact the MFJ-259 loaded with the same resistor shows X=3D0 at = 3.5 MHz! So, no question about that! =20 Interesting to note that the MFJ-269 Product Review on QST magazine = (May 2005 issue, Table 3) shows EXACTLY the same problem! A 269 design = problem which does not exist in the 259? =20 Reading the MFJ-269 factory calibration procedure (I have a copy of = it), they instruct the operator to adjust the instrument at 10 MHz. And at = 10 MHz it works fine! =20 Has anyone carried out a similar test? =20 Thanks & 73 =20 Tony I0JX (also K0JX when in the US) =20 =20 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger doger Antonio.
Guess I _didn't_ really look @ this back when I got it. SO...I did two things with the same problem showing up. I even remember looking over the QST comparisons and seeing some of the modles WORSE than the MFJ, but now that I think of it I don't remember fi it was the 259 or the 296 they tested nor so long ago. I probably figured they were the same bridge... I used Huber Suhner 50 ohm loads (really good 50 ohm loads). From 1.4 to 70 MhZ ( just flipped the 269 range switch) they show 49-51 ohms and not more than 1-2 ohms X. All in the series representation (Rs + Xs) Put 4 in parallel for a good 12.5 ohm load and at 4 and 1.9 I see 3-4 ohms of X. this is 25% of R !! Then, I got an old 1/4 W. carbon comp 180 ohm resistor. At 10 it showed quite close to 180 ohms. I believe it was 176 and around 25 ohms X However it showed up to 70-some ohms of X at 4 AND 1.9 MHz (same at both frequencies). Again around 25% of R. Being an RF electrical Engineer, I never expected this thing to be right on. I only figures it would get me in the right direction and let me know when I was in a "relatively small" 50 ohm circle. However, you are right. This seems to be quite poor. You'd think you'd see poorer accuracy higher in freq. 73, Steve, K,9'D;C.I "Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message ... Steve, from what you write I presume you have the 269, not the 259B (which works fine). As you are the only person who answered me, if you have time could you please re- check your 269 by loading it with a resistor in the range 150 to 200 ohm, verifying that the reactance (X) indication remains nearly zero when varying frequency in range 2 to 10 MHz. The only 269s I know are mine and the one tested by ARRL on QST. And both of them have a problem. So, if yours does not show that problem, then I have some hope 73 Tony I0JX "Steve Nosko" ha scritto nel messaggio ... I did some playing with mine after getting it, but didn't see anything like this. I did pretty much the same things, as I recall. HOWEVER, I did notice that going into the advanced mode and setting it for ZO of 75 ohms that is didn't report SWR correctly (should be 1:1 w/75 ohms attached and it still said 1.5 as though it still was thinking 50 ohms). I called and the "tech" who answered clearly didn't understand (said return it) and I elected to drop it since it worked ok otherwise. I'll try to find some time to re-check this issue. 73, Steve, K9DCI "Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message ... This post may be a bit OT, but I believe this is the forum where I can get some useful information. I have an MFJ-259B antenna analyzer which works fine. I also have an MFJ-269 (the one also working on UHF) which instead gives me odd results on the HF bands. I then sent the 269 back to MFJ for warranty repair, and when it came back it had exactly the same problem, despite I gave them a very detailed explanation of the problem. In summary the problem is the following: - loading the MFJ-269 with 50 ohm all is OK (it gives R=50, X=0) - loading it with a different value, say a small 200 ohm carbon resistor with very short leads, it gives R=200, X=0 at around 10 MHz but, LOWERING the frequency (e.g. down to 3.5 MHz), it progressively shows an higher and higher X value. This result is clearly wrong as a resistor having 0 reactance at 10 MHz cannot show reactance at 3.5 MHz. This is confirmed by the the fact the MFJ-259 loaded with the same resistor shows X=0 at 3.5 MHz! So, no question about that! Interesting to note that the MFJ-269 Product Review on QST magazine (May 2005 issue, Table 3) shows EXACTLY the same problem! A 269 design problem which does not exist in the 259? Reading the MFJ-269 factory calibration procedure (I have a copy of it), they instruct the operator to adjust the instrument at 10 MHz. And at 10 MHz it works fine! Has anyone carried out a similar test? Thanks & 73 Tony I0JX (also K0JX when in the US) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Imax ground plane question | CB | |||
Discone antenna plans | Antenna | |||
Yaesu FT-857D questions | Equipment | |||
LongWire Antenna | Shortwave | |||
EH Antenna Revisited | Antenna |