Internal K3 SWR vs Extermal SWR Meter
Locked
 
|
John, the problem is that I don't have one of these. But thanks for the suggestion. One thing I have not tried is hooking up my antenna and external wattmeter coupler with Antenna 2 instead of Antenna 1. I am anxious to find out if I get the same readings with #2 as I did with #1. I guess I am rather perplexed at the thought that there is such a variance between the K3 wattmeter vs an external wattmeter. Especially, when I connected the coupler to the antenna #1 with a plug and then attached the antenna coax to the coupler. It's a shame that the K3 does not have a way of synching up the internal wattmeter with an external wattmeter. Hopefully somebody from elecraft will read this email and make a comment on it. Thanks to all with their responses. Mark Griffin, KB3Z
______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: Internal K3 SWR vs Extermal SWR Meter
|
|
Mark,
There is good reason (assuming the internal tuner in the K3) for *not* syncing the wattmeters. With the KAT3 in-line, the SWR is *not* reading the SWR on the feedline, but instead telling you the SWR at the *input* to the KAT3 - that is the load that the K3 PA sees, and that is what really matters for full power output. Remember too that the KAT3 will have some residual reactance even in bypass mode. That will also make a difference in the SWR seen by the K3 PA transistors and the SWR on the feedline - it is just one of "those things". A 1.4 SWR on the feedline may actually result in a 1.1 SWR at the other end of that residual reactance. The external wattmeter will indicate the SWR on the feedline - at the output of the KAT3. There is nothing the KAT3 can do to change that. In addition, many wattmeters are woefully inaccurate when reading SWR. Most All will be quite accurate for an SWR of 1.0, but at anything other than that, you will find a variation in the readings on amateur grade wattmeters. If you have a good dummy load (non-reactive 50 ohms), you can calibrate the K3 wattmeter (for power, not SWR). The procedure is in the Calibration section of the manual. 73, Don W3FPR On 11/17/2013 4:57 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > John, the problem is that I don't have one of these. But thanks for the suggestion. One thing I have not tried is hooking up my antenna and external wattmeter coupler with Antenna 2 instead of Antenna 1. I am anxious to find out if I get the same readings with #2 as I did with #1. I guess I am rather perplexed at the thought that there is such a variance between the K3 wattmeter vs an external wattmeter. Especially, when I connected the coupler to the antenna #1 with a plug and then attached the antenna coax to the coupler. It's a shame that the K3 does not have a way of synching up the internal wattmeter with an external wattmeter. Hopefully somebody from elecraft will read this email and make a comment on it. Thanks to all with their responses. Mark Griffin, KB3Z > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Most ham-grade "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that I've encountered read E,
assume R, and "calculate" P in an analog fashion. When SWR is not 1:1, Z is not equal to 50 ohms, and in most cases, the higher the SWR, the higher the power indicated on the meter. For these instruments, nothing you see on the indicator is true unless the SWR is 1:1 [i.e. the impedance is 50 ohms]. Even then, many are sensitive to common-mode current on the outside of the coax shield, and most of us have *some* common-mode conduction on our feedlines. I once put three ham-grade "wattmeters" in series right next to each other on 20m, and they all read differently. When I changed their order in the feedline, they all read differently ... and different from what they had before. I concluded that, unless I was willing to spend the money to acquire test equipment that actually sensed and displayed watts and not E^2/R, I'd have to be satisfied with approximations. 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014 - www.cqp.org On 11/17/2013 2:25 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: > In addition, many wattmeters are woefully inaccurate when reading SWR. > Most All will be quite accurate for an SWR of 1.0, but at anything other > than that, you will find a variation in the readings on amateur grade > wattmeters. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Hi,
I am not aware of any "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that work by reading E and estimating power as (E^2)/50 ohm. If it did, it would not be able to determine any kind of estimate of SWR or reflected power. All the "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" I am aware of are constructed with a bridge circuit that is in principle capable of correctly displaying forward and reflected power even with a complex load impedance. But they do rely on the performance of at least one transformer, often a capacitive divider for sensing voltage and diode rectifiers with their inherent non-linearities, especially at the low power levels preferred for tune-ups. These components are often chosen for their lowest cost rather than performance and calibration may be sloppy. Even with quality RF components, unless the device has a microcontroller that can store and apply corrections for frequency, power level and temperature, accuracy is generally poor, easily exceeding 5-10% of full scale. High end devices that do much better than that are available but they come at a cost. Nothing in the instrument can compensate for the errors caused by common mode currents in the coax though so it's always important to keep the RF out of the shack. Three instruments in a line next to each other *should* read the same forward, reflected power and SWR under ideal conditions. AB2TC - Knut
|
|
|
In an older era, Telonic and HP made Rho-tectors as I remember. The beauty of these was the components of the bridge were precision, that is the resistors were matched on one side and the diode compensated for linearity. No transformer. There were 4 ports. One port had the precision reference 50 termination, the opposite side had the DUT, the third port was RF, and the last port the DC signal output. The sweeper was fed into the RF port and the DC to the vertical channel of a scope, the swept voltage went to the horizontal channel. If handled properly they are good from 1 to 1500 MHz. It is easy to see 3 to 30 MHz for checking a cable. Depending on the sweeper, accuracy could be easily calibrated with 25, 50, 75, and 100 ohm precision loads. 1.5:1 would give you 2 cms of deflection. I have a home brew one and it is my SWR reference to check the portable measurement device. No it doesn't give you R and j, sorry.
Mel, K6KBE On Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:22 PM, ab2tc <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, I am not aware of any "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that work by reading E and estimating power as (E^2)/50 ohm. If it did, it would not be able to determine any kind of estimate of SWR or reflected power. All the "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" I am aware of are constructed with a bridge circuit that is in principle capable of correctly displaying forward and reflected power even with a complex load impedance. But they do rely on the performance of at least one transformer, often a capacitive divider for sensing voltage and diode rectifiers with their inherent non-linearities, especially at the low power levels preferred for tune-ups. These components are often chosen for their lowest cost rather than performance and calibration may be sloppy. Even with quality RF components, unless the device has a microcontroller that can store and apply corrections for frequency, power level and temperature, accuracy is generally poor, easily exceeding 5-10% of full scale. High end devices that do much better than that are available but they come at a cost. Nothing in the instrument can compensate for the errors caused by common mode currents in the coax though so it's always important to keep the RF out of the shack. Three instruments in a line next to each other *should* read the same forward, reflected power and SWR under ideal conditions. AB2TC - Knut k6dgw wrote > Most ham-grade "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that I've encountered read E, > assume R, and "calculate" P in an analog fashion. When SWR is not 1:1, > Z is not equal to 50 ohms, and in most cases, the higher the SWR, the > higher the power indicated on the meter. For these instruments, nothing > you see on the indicator is true unless the SWR is 1:1 [i.e. the > impedance is 50 ohms]. Even then, many are sensitive to common-mode > current on the outside of the coax shield, and most of us have *some* > common-mode conduction on our feedlines. > > I once put three ham-grade "wattmeters" in series right next to each > other on 20m, and they all read differently. When I changed their order > in the feedline, they all read differently ... and different from what > they had before. I concluded that, unless I was willing to spend the > money to acquire test equipment that actually sensed and displayed watts > and not E^2/R, I'd have to be satisfied with approximations. > > 73, > > Fred K6DGW > - Northern California Contest Club > - CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014 > - www.cqp.org > <snip> -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Internal-K3-SWR-vs-Extermal-SWR-Meter-tp7580938p7581035.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: Internal K3 SWR vs Extermal SWR Meter
|
|
I gave up a long time ago as to precision and accuracy (two different animals) for SWR indicators. First of all there is only one connection sequence - xmtr, SWR meter, tuner. Any other order, or anything else in line, will confuse and obfuscate. Ones that I have enjoyed using are the cross-needle styles, but with built-in tuners, they're useless.
In the 53 years I have been a ham, the old rule still applies - tune for maximum smoke! Don't sweat the small details. Just do it and have fun. 73,72 Neal WA6OCP ________________________________ From: Mel Farrer <[hidden email]> To: ab2tc <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Internal K3 SWR vs Extermal SWR Meter In an older era, Telonic and HP made Rho-tectors as I remember. The beauty of these was the components of the bridge were precision, that is the resistors were matched on one side and the diode compensated for linearity. No transformer. There were 4 ports. One port had the precision reference 50 termination, the opposite side had the DUT, the third port was RF, and the last port the DC signal output. The sweeper was fed into the RF port and the DC to the vertical channel of a scope, the swept voltage went to the horizontal channel. If handled properly they are good from 1 to 1500 MHz. It is easy to see 3 to 30 MHz for checking a cable. Depending on the sweeper, accuracy could be easily calibrated with 25, 50, 75, and 100 ohm precision loads. 1.5:1 would give you 2 cms of deflection. I have a home brew one and it is my SWR reference to check the portable measurement device. No it doesn't give you R and j, sorry. Mel, K6KBE On Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:22 PM, ab2tc <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, I am not aware of any "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that work by reading E and estimating power as (E^2)/50 ohm. If it did, it would not be able to determine any kind of estimate of SWR or reflected power. All the "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" I am aware of are constructed with a bridge circuit that is in principle capable of correctly displaying forward and reflected power even with a complex load impedance. But they do rely on the performance of at least one transformer, often a capacitive divider for sensing voltage and diode rectifiers with their inherent non-linearities, especially at the low power levels preferred for tune-ups. These components are often chosen for their lowest cost rather than performance and calibration may be sloppy. Even with quality RF components, unless the device has a microcontroller that can store and apply corrections for frequency, power level and temperature, accuracy is generally poor, easily exceeding 5-10% of full scale. High end devices that do much better than that are available but they come at a cost. Nothing in the instrument can compensate for the errors caused by common mode currents in the coax though so it's always important to keep the RF out of the shack. Three instruments in a line next to each other *should* read the same forward, reflected power and SWR under ideal conditions. AB2TC - Knut k6dgw wrote > Most ham-grade "Wattmeters/SWR Bridges" that I've encountered read E, > assume R, and "calculate" P in an analog fashion. When SWR is not 1:1, > Z is not equal to 50 ohms, and in most cases, the higher the SWR, the > higher the power indicated on the meter. For these instruments, nothing > you see on the indicator is true unless the SWR is 1:1 [i.e. the > impedance is 50 ohms]. Even then, many are sensitive to common-mode > current on the outside of the coax shield, and most of us have *some* > common-mode conduction on our feedlines. > > I once put three ham-grade "wattmeters" in series right next to each > other on 20m, and they all read differently. When I changed their order > in the feedline, they all read differently ... and different from what > they had before. I concluded that, unless I was willing to spend the > money to acquire test equipment that actually sensed and displayed watts > and not E^2/R, I'd have to be satisfied with approximations. > > 73, > > Fred K6DGW > - Northern California Contest Club > - CU in the 2014 Cal QSO Party 4-5 Oct 2014 > - http://www.cqp.org/ > <snip> -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Internal-K3-SWR-vs-Extermal-SWR-Meter-tp7580938p7581035.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net/ Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |