PALSTAR AT1KP Meter 1200 Watt Antenna Tuner
Richard Neilsen
Anyone have or used one of these antenna tuners?
Wondering how they perform, have read the reviews on eham ect, just looking
for other opinions.
TIA
Richard
lt...@yahoo.com
Considering some of the reviews I've seen on various forums, the one
thing those reviews proves is that they must work. How well they work
just depends on how close to the tuner's limits any particular antenna
falls. 'Size' is one consideration that isn't thought of very often.
Bigger usually means larger limits cuz all those thingys inside are
larger, which is good to some ridiculous point. Deciding where
'ridiculous' starts/stops depends on you to a large extent. It has to
do with the antennas you have/want/are allowed, and the size of your
bank account.
Is it the mostest best thing on the market? Good question, and
another one of those 'depends' thingys. (Mine is the bestest tuner
ever made. It isn't produced anymore. It is not for sale, wish I had
another one! Can do some really 'weird' antennas. Ain't saying what
it is so the price will be cheaper when I find another one.)
- 'Doc
[Large doses of 'B.S.' are always a part of my responses. Deciding
which is what is your responsibility. Hows that for a 'CYA'?]
Andy
My Palstar AT1KP arrived this morning, so early days yet.
What I can say about it is that the build quality inside and out looks
excellent.
I have only run 110 watts through it and it has tuned my 40m Centre Fed
Dipole cut for 40 meters down to 1.1: from 1.8 - 6 meters with ease.
Hope this helps.
73 Andy
<lt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:832b6dd7-6308-4948...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Andy
Just an update for you on my AT1KP tuner.
I am only running 110 watts through the tuner due to not owning an
Amplifier.
I have tried it out on an End Fed wire WITH an earth ground rod that has a
very poor ground and also an End Fed Zep. It still tunes these wires down
to 1.1:1 from 160 - 6 Meters with ease.
I am very pleased with it and I'm glade I purchased the AT1KP. Hope this
helps.
73 Andy
"Andy" <dx...@blueyounder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Mvb6k.54963$M63....@newsfe13.ams2...
Ian Jackson
(ie the 80 Meter End Fed, fed with coax at the far end)? If so,
presumably the tuner is at the shack end. Or are you feeding it from the
shack end.
In message <RiK6k.30765$GF6....@newsfe27.ams2>, Andy
<dx...@blueyounder.co.uk> writes
>Hi Richard,
>
>Just an update for you on my AT1KP tuner.
>I am only running 110 watts through the tuner due to not owning an
>Amplifier.
>I have tried it out on an End Fed wire WITH an earth ground rod that has a
>very poor ground and also an End Fed Zep. It still tunes these wires down
>to 1.1:1 from 160 - 6 Meters with ease.
>I am very pleased with it and I'm glade I purchased the AT1KP. Hope this
>helps.
>
>73 Andy
>
--
Ian
Andy
Yes its the same. The tuner is at the shack end (house) and I'm feeding the
antenna with 50 Ohm RG-58 C/U coax at the far end of the garden. If I can
get it working well I will replace it with some RG-213 that I have here. I
put it back up yesterday and started experimenting again.
The End Fed at the moment has 15 feet of 300 Ohm slotted ribbon feeder. This
is all I had left spare. One side is connected to the wire antenna and the
other side left, not connected. The coax is connected to the 300 Ohm at the
bottom and the braid side is now connected to the unconnected side of the
300 Ohm and also to the earth ground rod.
On 80 the receive is up 2-4 S points compared with the 40m coax Centre Fed
Dipole. I have not had chance to get any actual reports on 80 yet. Maybe
this weekend.
73 Andy
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KXnmWRTT...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Ian Jackson
<dx...@blueyounder.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
>"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KXnmWRTT...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> Andy, is your endfed wire the one in your other thread of the 8th June (ie
>> the 80 Meter End Fed, fed with coax at the far end)? If so, presumably the
>> tuner is at the shack end. Or are you feeding it from the shack end.
>>
>>
>> In message <RiK6k.30765$GF6....@newsfe27.ams2>, Andy
>> <dx...@blueyounder.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>Yes its the same. The tuner is at the shack end (house) and I'm feeding the
>antenna with 50 Ohm RG-58 C/U coax at the far end of the garden. If I can
>get it working well I will replace it with some RG-213 that I have here. I
>put it back up yesterday and started experimenting again.
>
>The End Fed at the moment has 15 feet of 300 Ohm slotted ribbon feeder. This
>is all I had left spare. One side is connected to the wire antenna and the
>other side left, not connected. The coax is connected to the 300 Ohm at the
>bottom and the braid side is now connected to the unconnected side of the
>300 Ohm and also to the earth ground rod.
>On 80 the receive is up 2-4 S points compared with the 40m coax Centre Fed
>Dipole. I have not had chance to get any actual reports on 80 yet. Maybe
>this weekend.
>
>73 Andy
OK, Andy. Noted.
I don't know if you will really improve things by using the 15 foot of
300 ohm feeder. It's a sort of a zepp, but with one side of the twin
feeder earthed. I would try disconnecting the earthed ('unconnected')
side from earth / coax braid. You can either leave it floating, or
connect it to the coax inner. It will then be approximately a
quarterwave on 20m, fed in parallel with the long wire.
Don't read too much into the excellent SWR you're getting with the
tuner. That's what the TX sees, but the tuner can't affect the SWR on
the aerial feeder. If the coax SWR is sky high (and it can be if the
impedance at aerial feed point is high), the coax losses will be much
more that you would get compared with when it is matched correctly. You
only get away with it by using the lowest-loss you can find, and keeping
the coax as short as possible.
I'm not surprised that 80m on the endfed is a bit better than the 40m
dipole. But what's 40m like on the endfed? That's when the feed
impedance (and coax SWR) will be very high, and where the RG-213 might
perform better noticeably better than the RG-58.
As I think I said before, although I am an advocate of simply using coax
(regardless), after all these years I am considering in investing in
something like a SG230 remote tuner for the far end of the coax.
--
Ian
Andy
I'll have to do some experimenting with the 300 Ohm feeder and see what
happens. The End Fed on 40m is very poor indeed. I would say unusable like
it is.
The End Fed wire at the moment is resonate on 2. 682 MHz.
The funny thing is that when I cut the wire to bring the End Fed to resonate
on 80m, no matter how much wire I cut off it doesn't really move from the
2.682 MHz. I have tried this with and with out the ribbon feeder being in
place and with coax connected direct and the braid connected to the earth
rod.
What would cause this?
I have no problem using the Analyser with my mobile and centre fed dipoles.
73 Andy
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqiyJALE...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
atec77
certainly assist things .
Ian Jackson
writes
>>>('unconnected') side from earth / coax braid. You can either leave
>>>it floating, or connect it to the coax inner. It will then be
>>>approximately a quarterwave on 20m, fed in parallel with the long wire.
>>>
>>> Don't read too much into the excellent SWR you're getting with the
>>>tuner. That's what the TX sees, but the tuner can't affect the SWR
>>>on the aerial feeder. If the coax SWR is sky high (and it can be if
>>>the impedance at aerial feed point is high), the coax losses will be
>>>much more that you would get compared with when it is matched
>>>correctly. You only get away with it by using the lowest-loss you
>>>can find, and keeping the coax as short as possible.
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised that 80m on the endfed is a bit better than the
>>>40m dipole. But what's 40m like on the endfed? That's when the feed
>>>impedance (and coax SWR) will be very high, and where the RG-213
>>>might perform better noticeably better than the RG-58.
>>>
>>> As I think I said before, although I am an advocate of simply using
>>>coax (regardless), after all these years I am considering in
>>>investing in something like a SG230 remote tuner for the far end of
>>>the coax.
>>> -- Ian
>>>
>>
>> I'll have to do some experimenting with the 300 Ohm feeder and see
>>what happens. The End Fed on 40m is very poor indeed. I would say
>>unusable like it is.
>> The End Fed wire at the moment is resonate on 2. 682 MHz.
>> The funny thing is that when I cut the wire to bring the End Fed to
>>resonate on 80m, no matter how much wire I cut off it doesn't really
>>move from the 2.682 MHz. I have tried this with and with out the
>>ribbon feeder being in place and with coax connected direct and the
>>braid connected to the earth rod.
>> What would cause this?
>> I have no problem using the Analyser with my mobile and centre fed
>>dipoles.
>> 73 Andy
>adding a suitably cut wire counterpoise at +% for each band should
>certainly assist things .
I rather think that Andy can't add counterpoises. A decent earthing
system should work (although additional counterpoises certainly won't do
any harm).
Re the 2.682MHz resonance, this may be because the coax is completely
mismatched at lots of frequencies, and what you're seeing this is
more-or-less a spurious resonance of the coax itself. Do you still get
it with the wire completely disconnected? Even with centre-fed dipoles,
you often get some very unexpected resonances way off frequency
(especially of you are doing a wideband frequency sweep of the return
loss / SWR).
As I said previously, persuading an approximate halfwave endfed (which
is what you have on 40m) to work with a coax feed is certainly not
ideal, but you can usually get it to work fairly well (with all the
provisos already discussed). My setup here is almost twice the size of
what you have, so the wire feed impedance will be low on 160m and I high
on 80m and 40m. 80m (corresponding to your 40m) is certainly lively
enough. On 40m, the performance does not seem to be unduly poor compared
with the signal reports swapped between others on the band.
So, Andy, I simply don't know why your 40m is so poor. Have you tried
(temporarily) reducing the length to around 33 feet, so that it is a
quarterwave on 40m? This should give a reasonable match for your coax
(at least, nothing you can't tune out back in the shack). If this is
more lively than the 64 feet, maybe you can try two wires in parallel.
This can be discussed later if the 33 feet shows promise. If a multiband
(and possibly compromise) aerial doesn't work well, it's a good idea to
try something simple which you know SHOULD work. The problem may lie
elsewhere.
Finally, can I ask you to follow the standard practice of bottom
posting!
Cheers...
--
Ian
atec77
with some rg213 adding some multi strand suitably trimmed one be a
burden from the far coax connection back
A decent earthing
> system should work
balun of some sort may prove most useful
(although additional counterpoises certainly won't do
> any harm).
>
> Re the 2.682MHz resonance, this may be because the coax is completely
> mismatched at lots of frequencies, and what you're seeing this is
> more-or-less a spurious resonance of the coax itself.
Do you still get
> it with the wire completely disconnected? Even with centre-fed dipoles,
> you often get some very unexpected resonances way off frequency
> (especially of you are doing a wideband frequency sweep of the return
> loss / SWR).
>
> As I said previously, persuading an approximate halfwave endfed (which
> is what you have on 40m) to work with a coax feed is certainly not
> ideal, but you can usually get it to work fairly well (with all the
> provisos already discussed). My setup here is almost twice the size of
> what you have, so the wire feed impedance will be low on 160m and I high
> on 80m and 40m. 80m (corresponding to your 40m) is certainly lively
> enough. On 40m, the performance does not seem to be unduly poor compared
> with the signal reports swapped between others on the band.
>
> So, Andy, I simply don't know why your 40m is so poor. Have you tried
> (temporarily) reducing the length to around 33 feet, so that it is a
> quarterwave on 40m? This should give a reasonable match for your coax
> (at least, nothing you can't tune out back in the shack). If this is
> more lively than the 64 feet, maybe you can try two wires in parallel.
> This can be discussed later if the 33 feet shows promise. If a multiband
> (and possibly compromise) aerial doesn't work well, it's a good idea to
> try something simple which you know SHOULD work. The problem may lie
> elsewhere.
>
Oh dear
lt...@yahoo.com
May not have the lowest losses possible, but certainly not complete
'crap'. Replacing it with something 'better' is certainly an option,
but not the first one I'd try.
Options.
Try all that you can think of and see what happens. If things are
'better' on one particular band doing it 'this' way, then I think I'd
note that when using that particular band. Repeat for the other
bands. Lots of work? Sure, but if it works, it works. Finding one
antenna that does it all is almost impossible. Too many variables
depending on each individual installation. But, if you get 'close',
that's probably as good as you can expect, depending on the
circumstances. Having the absolute 'best' antenna in the world is
certainly nice! It isn't absolutely necessary. Everyone goes through
this same sort of thingy. The results differ, but so do the
circumstances.
Good luck.
- 'Doc
Andy
I've have just connected the Analyser at the feed point on the End fed wire.
The frequency is now at 2.898 MHz without coax being in line. I have just
tried
to shorten the Antenna again to bring the frequency closer to the 80m band,
but
it will not adjust from this frequency.
What's confusing me is that the End fed wire should be longer than a 1/4
wave on 80 and the frequency that it ended up on, that is now 2.898 would be
about right for the length. So why won't that frequency change when I start
trimming the wire down in size?
It just isn't making any sense to me. The resonant frequency surely should
change with the altered length.
73 Andy
Ian Jackson
Ummmm...
Obviously something is wrong. It looks like your analyser is simply
telling lies. Could it have a spurious resonance at this frequency?
>
>What's confusing me is that the End fed wire should be longer than a 1/4
>wave on 80
>and the frequency that it ended up on, that is now 2.898 would be
>about right for the length.
A quarterwave on 80m is around 66 feet. Your 63 feet is actually a bit
on the short side. Being only 20 feet up may pull the resonance a bit
lower, but I doubt is could be anywhere as low as 2.898MHz.
>So why won't that frequency change when I start
>trimming the wire down in size?
>It just isn't making any sense to me. The resonant frequency surely should
>change with the altered length.
>
If shortening the aerial doesn't change the frequency, I don't think
your analyser is measuring the aerial. This is indeed a puzzle. As I
suggested before, you could go from the sublime to the ridiculous, and
try something like 33 feet, which should resonate at around 7MHz. If it
sticks at 2.898MHz, something is seriously amiss.
--
Ian
Albert
MFJ Analyser ????
Isolate the transmission line (coax) from the antenna, ie; UGLY BALUN, Line
Isolator
analyser may have copted a nose full of RF from the braid of feedline,
with such a mismatch
should build resonant antennas first, before inserting giant matcher, just
to see how much of your RF is dissipated in the match box. TX and RX
Andy
I did have time to connect a temp 60 feet of wire from the top of the ribbon
feeder on the braid side to make a close 63 feet centre fed dipole fed with
300 Ohm feeder and the antenna resonates at 3.780 MHz with a 1.1:1 and the
AT1KP backs this reading up. I haven't tried to lengthen or shorten the
antenna yet. To see if it changes resonance, but I will do tomorrow.
It can't stay like that unfortunately.
So either my Analyser doesn't like to read End Fed antennas or there
something else causing the funny readings. If the Analyser senses the change
in frequency tomorrow when I start lengthening the antenna then it must be
working OK or there is a fault with it and it can't read End Fed wires
correctly. Is this even possible considering its reading everything else
correct.
What do you think?
73 Andy
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hOf8QPN3...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Andy
I will tomorrow see if I have a spare 21" of coax handy to make one.
73 Andy
"Albert" <weus&c...@elsewhere.com> wrote in message
news:M4GdnWo9tvWpWMPV...@posted.internode...
Ian Jackson
<weus&c...@elsewhere.com> writes
directly on the antenna (at the antenna feedpoint) - so no coax was
involved in this particular test.
He seems to get a resonance at 2.898MHz, regardless of the length of the
antenna. Could this be because there is a strong (and permanent) RF
signal which is being picked up on the antenna, and is confusing the
analyser?
--
Ian
Albert
yes tricky, have you done the ZO test on the RG-58 ? using the test gear
at the freqs you discribe, 10 turns rg-213 @ 10 " hence UGLY
less as you go up the band, or 12 x77 type ferrite beads
close proximity Stray RF, CONNECTED OR NOT and direct sunlight on the
meter face ( summer for a period of time ) are two sure ways to Kill a MFJ
analyser
Ian Jackson
>I haven't had time to try a 33" End fed to see if it would tune on 40m .But
>I did have time to connect a temp 60 feet of wire from the top of the ribbon
>feeder on the braid side to make a close 63 feet centre fed dipole fed with
>300 Ohm feeder and the antenna resonates at 3.780 MHz with a 1.1:1 and the
>AT1KP backs this reading up. I haven't tried to lengthen or shorten the
>antenna yet. To see if it changes resonance, but I will do tomorrow.
>
>It can't stay like that unfortunately.
>
>So either my Analyser doesn't like to read End Fed antennas or there
>something else causing the funny readings. If the Analyser senses the change
>in frequency tomorrow when I start lengthening the antenna then it must be
>working OK or there is a fault with it and it can't read End Fed wires
>correctly. Is this even possible considering its reading everything else
>correct.
>
>What do you think?
>
>73 Andy
>
Andy, you've gone back to top posting, and this makes it very difficult
to follow the discussion. In newsgroups (unlike emails), you should
really post at the bottom. This is the established convention.
Anyway, it's interesting what you have found out with the dipole
configuration. Presumably, you still have the coax braid and one side of
300 ohm feeder earthed. If so, I would not have expected there to be
quite such a dramatic change of resonance. However, if your earth rods
are totally ineffective (or you have disconnected the earth), you might
expect things to change a lot when you add 'the other half of the
dipole'. If you actually have room to put up an appx 60 foot + 60 foot
dipole, why not consider a G5RV (which, I believe, you have already
tried) or a W3DZZ trap dipole? This would get rid of your earthing
problems.
--
Ian
Albert
Yes , could be a product of a Broadcast station ?
ok on the NO COAX, unless damage has been done.
tricky, will keep you off the streets, and out of the pubs Andy,
or perhaps in the pubs full as a boot if you do not get some answers soon
good luck
atec77
eliminate a short
Andy
How I got the extra 60 feet + up was to bring it back on itself towards the
house in a shape of the letter V. The wire is very low to the floor and in
every ones way. I have no idea how it radiates in this shape. It can only be
like this as a temp solution.
I really need to understand why the End Fed wire is behaving the way it
does. I think the Analyser is working OK or it wouldn't be able to tune a
Centre Fed Dipole. I hope
When the earth rod was connected to the End Fed wire as a ground, there was
a definite 2 S points up on received signal compared to it being
disconnected. So it must be doing something.
I had a listen around 2 - 3.5 MHz for any strong signals and I can't find
any that might cause me problems.
I would have expected the frequency to change when altering the length of
the wire.
73 Andy.
Ian Jackson
>news:tsYfo+Qp...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> Anyway, it's interesting what you have found out with the dipole
>> configuration. Presumably, you still have the coax braid and one side of
>> 300 ohm feeder earthed. If so, I would not have expected there to be quite
>> such a dramatic change of resonance. However, if your earth rods are
>> totally ineffective (or you have disconnected the earth), you might expect
>> things to change a lot when you add 'the other half of the dipole'. If you
>> actually have room to put up an appx 60 foot + 60 foot dipole, why not
>> consider a G5RV (which, I believe, you have already tried) or a W3DZZ trap
>> dipole? This would get rid of your earthing problems.
>> --
>> Ian
>
>
>How I got the extra 60 feet + up was to bring it back on itself towards the
>house in a shape of the letter V. The wire is very low to the floor and in
>every ones way. I have no idea how it radiates in this shape. It can only be
>like this as a temp solution.
>I really need to understand why the End Fed wire is behaving the way it
>does. I think the Analyser is working OK or it wouldn't be able to tune a
>Centre Fed Dipole. I hope
>
>When the earth rod was connected to the End Fed wire as a ground, there was
>a definite 2 S points up on received signal compared to it being
>disconnected. So it must be doing something.
True.
>
>I had a listen around 2 - 3.5 MHz for any strong signals and I can't find
>any that might cause me problems.
Noted.
>
>I would have expected the frequency to change when altering the length of
>the wire.
>
>73 Andy.
>
What you have done is essentially to add a counterpoise / radial which
is appx a quarterwave long. This is really the other half of the dipole.
The higher it is up in the air, the more it will radiate. Note that, as
it is at the top end of the 15 feet of 300 ohm feeder, the feeder will
act like a transformer, and couple RF into 'counterpoise'. The
'counterpoise' will be more lively than if it were connected to the
braid at the far end of the coax.
As the 'counterpoise' is coming back under the actual aerial wire
(albeit at an angle) the radiation will tend to oppose that from the
aerial. This will reduce the overall radiation, so the greater the
separation, the better.
[Of course, if the counterpoise can be run in the opposite direction
from the aerial wire, the radiation doesn't cancel, and you might as
well erect the counterpoise as high as possible. What you will have, of
course, is a 'normal' dipole.]
I still think all of this points to the fact that your earth rods are
making very poor contact with the ground. If you have a fantastic earth
connection, counterpoises and radials have little effect. With an
absolutely lousy ground contact (and poor ground conductivity), they can
make a great difference. With the single wire (and no counterpoise), the
analyser will need a good earth connection. Without it, it's going to
read rubbish, which may explain why a change of wire length makes no
difference.
I think I would concentrate on improving the ground connection a bit
more (more earth rods, or maybe some wires buried in the ground?). My
inverted-L aerial feed is at the fence at the end of my back garden. The
earthing system (at the fence) consists of three old bits of galvanized
water pipe (about 6 foot long), and each about 6 feet apart. In addition
to that, the wooden fence posts are mounted into 'Metposts'
http://www.metpost.co.uk/
each of which is about around 2.5 foot long, with only about 6 inches
above the ground. The length of the fence is 70 feet, so there about
Metposts. Most of these are also connected to my earthing system. I did
once try adding a counterpoise for 80m, but it had no effect. [My soil,
by the way, is mainly clay and flints. That which is not, is old
bricks.]
When you've done as much as is reasonable with you earth system, all you
can do is to add counterpoises etc.
If you really cannot get an efficient earth/counterpoise system, you
will probably be better concentrating your efforts on dipoles (even if
you have to use bent or compressed versions). At least you know where
you are with a dipole.
--
Ian
wazzzzup
many people don't bother unless there is a specific need to reference
particular comments in multiple parts of a posting. May be irritating for
some, but build a bridge and get over it.
A more serious PITA is people not trimming the unnecessary parts from their
responses when there is no requirement to include it. If people really want
to have a look at how the discussion plays out, then they can go back and
look through it, post by post. Much more of a PITA to have people include a
couple of hundred lines of text - or more - and then reply with a couple of
words......
As to the actual topic of the post, yes, the analyser might be picking up a
strong local transmission that is confusing it - having said that, at my
current QTH, I am pretty close to a number of MW broadcast sites with high
TX levels and I have not experienced any of the problems or issues as
outlined by Andy.
me
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tsYfo+Qp...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Brad
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:39 +1000, "wazzzzup" <wazzz...@wazzzzup.com>
> wrote:
>
> [drivel snipped]
>
> Kill-filed for top-posting.
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Kill-filed for being a wanker.