From owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Sat Jan 11 22:18:00 1997 Received: from fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU (fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU [128.180.1.4]) by oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA03917 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:17:59 -0500 (EST) X-Received-x: from fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU (fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU [128.180.1.4]) by oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA03917 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from Lehigh.EDU ([127.0.0.1]) by fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu with SMTP id <35311-24105>; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:17:03 -0500 Received: from nss2.CC.Lehigh.EDU ([128.180.1.26]) by fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu with ESMTP id <34943-44330>; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:15:57 -0500 Received: from mh004.infi.net (mh004.infi.net [198.22.1.119]) by nss2.CC.Lehigh.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA32876 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:15:51 -0500 Received: from pa8dsp4.nr.infi.net by mh004.infi.net with SMTP (Infinet-S-3.3) id WAA13539; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:16:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701120316.WAA13539@mh004.infi.net> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:16:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: ae4ic@nr.infi.net Sender: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Precedence: bulk From: Bob Kellogg To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: Results - tuner tests Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: ae4ic@nr.infi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: RO Gang, here is a summary of the results from the first two tuner tests. There will be more to come, but you may be interested in what I have so far. I have complete charts showing details of the tests, however, this will be an attempt to present the data in capsule form. The two tuners tested are the MFJ-949E, (or MFJ948E without the dummy load) and the EMTECH ZM-1. Most on this list are familiar with the ZM-1, since it is designed for QRP. The MFJ-949E is one of their most popular tuners. It has 300 watt capacity and is of the C-L-C "T" design. Each tuner was tested for 9 SWR conditions ranging from a few ohms to several hundred ohms. These conditions were tested on each of the 9 HF bands in both the balanced and unbalanced modes. The MFJ-949E covers 160M through 10M, so it was tested under 162 SWR/Frequency combinations. The ZM-1 covers 80M through 10M and was tested under 144 SWR/Frequency combinations. It is important to remember that the information is a summary, and cannot indicate performance on any individual SWR/Frequency combination. Each tuner showed excellent performance under certain conditions, and performed less than desireably under other conditions. It is important to remember also that these results are based on testing *one* tuner which may or may not be representative of all of the tuners of the same model. The tuners were tested for four conditions: RANGE - Answers this question: Within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, how many SWR/Frequency combinations could actually be tuned to 1.1:1 SWR or better? Results: MFJ-949E 137/162 (137 out of 162 possible), ZM-1 140/144 EFFICIENCY - Answers this question: Within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, how many SWR/Frequency combinations resulted in less than 20% (approx. 1 db) power loss? Results: MFJ-949E 49/162, ZM-1 60/144 SWR BANDWIDTH - Answers this question: Within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, how many SWR/Frequency combinations resulted in a tuning range greater than 5% of the primary frequency? (5% on 7.2MHz is 360Kc)(Once the tuner is set, how far can we tune from the frequency before SWR climbs to 1.5?) Results: MFJ-949E 73/162, ZM-1 61/144 BALANCE - Answers this question: Within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, how many SWR/Frequency combinations indicated a balanced output with less than 1.5:1 difference between the lines? Results: MFJ-949E 52/81, ZM-1 72/72 Will have results for the ST. Louis tuner in a few days. The limits I used above are arbitrary, of course, and in some cases, may be too broad. (perhaps I should have used 3% tuning range for the SWR Bandwidth) Your suggestions are welcome. This is the first pass at reporting results, so tell me what you think. CUL, Bob Kellogg, AE4IC, Greensboro, NC Prolably, but not nececelery. - Benny Hill From owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Fri Jan 17 22:23:11 1997 Received: from fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU (fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU [128.180.1.4]) by oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA19388 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:23:10 -0500 (EST) X-Received-x: from fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU (fidoii.CC.Lehigh.EDU [128.180.1.4]) by oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id WAA19388 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from Lehigh.EDU ([127.0.0.1]) by fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu with SMTP id <34912-52036>; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:21:23 -0500 Received: from nss2.CC.Lehigh.EDU ([128.180.1.26]) by fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu with ESMTP id <34889-35648>; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:20:45 -0500 Received: from mh004.infi.net (mh004.infi.net [198.22.1.119]) by nss2.CC.Lehigh.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA108958 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:20:37 -0500 Received: from pa6dsp9.nr.infi.net by mh004.infi.net with SMTP (Infinet-S-3.3) id WAA23668; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:21:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701180321.WAA23668@mh004.infi.net> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 22:21:04 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: ae4ic@nr.infi.net Sender: owner-qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU Precedence: bulk From: Bob Kellogg To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: Tuner test results II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: ae4ic@nr.infi.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN Status: RO Gang, here is another tuner test summary. This includes the St. Louis tuner. The tuners listed are the MFJ-949E, (MFJ-948E), the EMTECH ZM-1, and the St. Louis tuner. The ZM-1 is a Z-Match tuner, and the MFJ-949E and the St. Louis are the C-L-C "T" design. It is important to remember that the information below is a summary, and cannot indicate performance on any individual SWR/Frequency combination. Each tuner may show excellent performance under certain conditions, and perform less than desireably under other conditions. Some perform better on certain frequencies than others. It is important to remember also that these results are based on testing one or two tuners which may or may not be representative of all of the tuners of the same model. (particularly true of kits which may have variations in wire routing) The tuners were tested for four conditions: RANGE - The number of SWR/Frequency combinations, within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, that could actually be tuned to 1.1:1 SWR or better. Results: MFJ-949E 137/162 (137 out of 162 possible) ZM-1 140/144 St. Louis 138/144 EFFICIENCY - The number of SWR/Frequency combinations, within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, which resulted in less than 20% (approx. 1 db) power loss. Results: MFJ-949E 49/162 ZM-1 60/144 St. Louis 1/144 (not an error) SWR BANDWIDTH - The number of SWR/Frequency combinations, within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, which enabled a tuning range greater than 5% of the primary frequency. (5% on 7.2MHz is 360Kc) (Once the tuner is set, how far can we tune from the frequency before SWR climbs to 1.5?) Results: MFJ-949E 73/162 ZM-1 61/144 St.Louis 77/144 BALANCE - The number of SWR/Frequency combinations, within the advertized frequency range of the tuner, indicating a balanced output with less than 1.5:1 difference between the lines. Results: MFJ-949E 52/81 ZM-1 72/72 St. Louis 72/72 In the near future I will be testing the Supre Tee, available from Kanga, the Murch 2000 and the LGD Electronics Automatic tuner. CUL, Bob Kellogg, AE4IC, Greensboro, NC Prolably, but not nececelery. - Benny Hill