Determining Impedance With An Antenna AnalyzerWhat is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?RigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The InformationImpedance Matching Different FeedlinesRudementary Impedance measurements for VLF antenna systemTurn 75 Ω TV “Rabbit Ears” with a balun into a 50 Ω dipole antennaImpedance matching between antenna and load - Theory and Practice?Removing the whip on a 2m/70cm antenna makes no differenceImpedance Matching between RF Amplifier StagesExactly why do some SWR meters give a changing reading depending on the length of coax used to connect to an antenna?Measuring S21 against TX-RX distance (a.k.a path loss modelling) with a network analyzer didn't give expected resultsBow Tie antennas impedanceRigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The Information

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?

Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items

Font hinting is lost in Chrome-like browsers (for some languages )

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

Approximately how much travel time was saved by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?

An academic/student plagiarism

Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?

Do VLANs within a subnet need to have their own subnet for router on a stick?

Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?

How to format long polynomial?

Why do falling prices hurt debtors?

Have astronauts in space suits ever taken selfies? If so, how?

What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?

Is a tag line useful on a cover?

How old can references or sources in a thesis be?

What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

Fencing style for blades that can attack from a distance

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Modeling an IPv4 Address

Writing rule stating superpower from different root cause is bad writing



Determining Impedance With An Antenna Analyzer


What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?RigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The InformationImpedance Matching Different FeedlinesRudementary Impedance measurements for VLF antenna systemTurn 75 Ω TV “Rabbit Ears” with a balun into a 50 Ω dipole antennaImpedance matching between antenna and load - Theory and Practice?Removing the whip on a 2m/70cm antenna makes no differenceImpedance Matching between RF Amplifier StagesExactly why do some SWR meters give a changing reading depending on the length of coax used to connect to an antenna?Measuring S21 against TX-RX distance (a.k.a path loss modelling) with a network analyzer didn't give expected resultsBow Tie antennas impedanceRigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The Information













3












$begingroup$


I need some help interpreting some information from my antenna analyzer (RigExpert AA-35). I want to use the information to impedance match my AM receiving antenna system to AM radios. No transmitting, just receiving. The data was captured at the point just before the feed-line enters the radio. 75Ω coax is used & was programmed into the analyzer. Here is the data that the analyzer provided:



  1. Freq in kHz = 511.2

  2. SWR = 2.62

  3. RL dB = 6.98

  4. Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91

  5. |Z| (Ω) = 178.99

  6. |rho| = .045, phase = 19.95 (Degrees)

  7. C (pF) = 4871.47

  8. Zpar (Ω) = 191.62 - j501.28

  9. Cpar (pF) = 621.08

  10. 1/4 Cable Length = 317.47'

Q1: How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?



Q2: Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?



How these two answers are arrived at using the figures provided by the analyzer and the known requirements of the radio would be most helpful, so I understand the process.



I was under the mistaken impression that this impedance number would be provided in ohms by the analyzer in the same simple manner in which say the SWR is given. Trying to learn this process and hoping that being provided “how” this answer is achieved will help me understand how to use the analyzer for this purpose.



Just for reference, the antenna is an “IP33 MIni Whip Antenna”. Connected to 75 Ω coax. Connected to the systems small power amp for the whip (Unplugged). Connected to another short length of the 75 coax. The analyzer was at this point connected to the system. The same point where the antenna lead is converted to enter the back of the radio. I have measured at other points in the system. Just used this point as the example.



This question is not really about location placement of any actual transformer or Balun or Unun that might be installed. I am just using the above example to understand the impedance data acquisition and conversion for use in impedance matching. Thanks!










share|improve this question









New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 15:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 15:48










  • $begingroup$
    Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:02










  • $begingroup$
    No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 16:35
















3












$begingroup$


I need some help interpreting some information from my antenna analyzer (RigExpert AA-35). I want to use the information to impedance match my AM receiving antenna system to AM radios. No transmitting, just receiving. The data was captured at the point just before the feed-line enters the radio. 75Ω coax is used & was programmed into the analyzer. Here is the data that the analyzer provided:



  1. Freq in kHz = 511.2

  2. SWR = 2.62

  3. RL dB = 6.98

  4. Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91

  5. |Z| (Ω) = 178.99

  6. |rho| = .045, phase = 19.95 (Degrees)

  7. C (pF) = 4871.47

  8. Zpar (Ω) = 191.62 - j501.28

  9. Cpar (pF) = 621.08

  10. 1/4 Cable Length = 317.47'

Q1: How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?



Q2: Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?



How these two answers are arrived at using the figures provided by the analyzer and the known requirements of the radio would be most helpful, so I understand the process.



I was under the mistaken impression that this impedance number would be provided in ohms by the analyzer in the same simple manner in which say the SWR is given. Trying to learn this process and hoping that being provided “how” this answer is achieved will help me understand how to use the analyzer for this purpose.



Just for reference, the antenna is an “IP33 MIni Whip Antenna”. Connected to 75 Ω coax. Connected to the systems small power amp for the whip (Unplugged). Connected to another short length of the 75 coax. The analyzer was at this point connected to the system. The same point where the antenna lead is converted to enter the back of the radio. I have measured at other points in the system. Just used this point as the example.



This question is not really about location placement of any actual transformer or Balun or Unun that might be installed. I am just using the above example to understand the impedance data acquisition and conversion for use in impedance matching. Thanks!










share|improve this question









New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 15:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 15:48










  • $begingroup$
    Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:02










  • $begingroup$
    No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 16:35














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


I need some help interpreting some information from my antenna analyzer (RigExpert AA-35). I want to use the information to impedance match my AM receiving antenna system to AM radios. No transmitting, just receiving. The data was captured at the point just before the feed-line enters the radio. 75Ω coax is used & was programmed into the analyzer. Here is the data that the analyzer provided:



  1. Freq in kHz = 511.2

  2. SWR = 2.62

  3. RL dB = 6.98

  4. Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91

  5. |Z| (Ω) = 178.99

  6. |rho| = .045, phase = 19.95 (Degrees)

  7. C (pF) = 4871.47

  8. Zpar (Ω) = 191.62 - j501.28

  9. Cpar (pF) = 621.08

  10. 1/4 Cable Length = 317.47'

Q1: How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?



Q2: Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?



How these two answers are arrived at using the figures provided by the analyzer and the known requirements of the radio would be most helpful, so I understand the process.



I was under the mistaken impression that this impedance number would be provided in ohms by the analyzer in the same simple manner in which say the SWR is given. Trying to learn this process and hoping that being provided “how” this answer is achieved will help me understand how to use the analyzer for this purpose.



Just for reference, the antenna is an “IP33 MIni Whip Antenna”. Connected to 75 Ω coax. Connected to the systems small power amp for the whip (Unplugged). Connected to another short length of the 75 coax. The analyzer was at this point connected to the system. The same point where the antenna lead is converted to enter the back of the radio. I have measured at other points in the system. Just used this point as the example.



This question is not really about location placement of any actual transformer or Balun or Unun that might be installed. I am just using the above example to understand the impedance data acquisition and conversion for use in impedance matching. Thanks!










share|improve this question









New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I need some help interpreting some information from my antenna analyzer (RigExpert AA-35). I want to use the information to impedance match my AM receiving antenna system to AM radios. No transmitting, just receiving. The data was captured at the point just before the feed-line enters the radio. 75Ω coax is used & was programmed into the analyzer. Here is the data that the analyzer provided:



  1. Freq in kHz = 511.2

  2. SWR = 2.62

  3. RL dB = 6.98

  4. Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91

  5. |Z| (Ω) = 178.99

  6. |rho| = .045, phase = 19.95 (Degrees)

  7. C (pF) = 4871.47

  8. Zpar (Ω) = 191.62 - j501.28

  9. Cpar (pF) = 621.08

  10. 1/4 Cable Length = 317.47'

Q1: How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?



Q2: Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?



How these two answers are arrived at using the figures provided by the analyzer and the known requirements of the radio would be most helpful, so I understand the process.



I was under the mistaken impression that this impedance number would be provided in ohms by the analyzer in the same simple manner in which say the SWR is given. Trying to learn this process and hoping that being provided “how” this answer is achieved will help me understand how to use the analyzer for this purpose.



Just for reference, the antenna is an “IP33 MIni Whip Antenna”. Connected to 75 Ω coax. Connected to the systems small power amp for the whip (Unplugged). Connected to another short length of the 75 coax. The analyzer was at this point connected to the system. The same point where the antenna lead is converted to enter the back of the radio. I have measured at other points in the system. Just used this point as the example.



This question is not really about location placement of any actual transformer or Balun or Unun that might be installed. I am just using the above example to understand the impedance data acquisition and conversion for use in impedance matching. Thanks!







antenna-theory balun impedance-matching measurement






share|improve this question









New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 3 at 16:33









Mike Waters

3,6972635




3,6972635






New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 3 at 14:29









B. VarnerB. Varner

462




462




New contributor




B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






B. Varner is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 15:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 15:48










  • $begingroup$
    Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:02










  • $begingroup$
    No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 16:35

















  • $begingroup$
    You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 15:09










  • $begingroup$
    I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 15:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 15:48










  • $begingroup$
    Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:02










  • $begingroup$
    No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 16:35
















$begingroup$
You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 15:09




$begingroup$
You started a new question about the same thing. Any reason why you don't want to edit the original question?
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 15:09












$begingroup$
I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 15:10




$begingroup$
I was specifically asked by an admin to open a new question. You can find that request in the original thread............. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 15:10




1




1




$begingroup$
@MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Reid AG6YO
Apr 3 at 15:48




$begingroup$
@MikeWaters Changing that question to this one would invalidate the existing answers, which is not OK.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Reid AG6YO
Apr 3 at 15:48












$begingroup$
Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 16:02




$begingroup$
Ok, sorry I did not mean to do anything wrong. To me this is a different question than the other thread. That thread was more about asking for help with ALL the data produced by the analyzer.........
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 16:02












$begingroup$
No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 16:35





$begingroup$
No problem. Relax. :-) I was the one who was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 16:35











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$


How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?




"Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91" is telling you the impedance. The impedance of your antenna is $(167.19 - j63.91)$ ohms.




Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?




That's not how impedance transformation works. You need a matching network, which may contain inductors, capacitors, transformers, chokes, transmission lines, or all of those. Impedance matching is a two-dimensional problem, just as we measure impedance as a complex number with two components.



Furthermore, we don't want to add ohms in the form of a resistor, because while that would, technically, be able to help match the impedance (e.g. in the simple case where the antenna's impedance is too small), it would not improve the signal to the receiver, but merely throw away some of it (dissipated in the antenna).



There's many different ways to design matching networks; I should really link to an introduction to the topic here but I haven't found a good one at the moment.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:09







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 18:06



















2












$begingroup$

Thanks for following up on your earlier question.



All of the data you provide in your question represents the impedance the analyzer "sees" at the point you measured it. There is no need to convert anything, it's all there, the challenge is how to use it.



Because the impedance you measured at the transmitter end of the feedline to your antenna includes both resistance (167.19$Omega$) and reactance (-63.91$Omega$), "how many ohms, increase or decrease" doesn't fully describe the process by which you transform it to the 75$Omega$ (resistive) output impedance of your rig. Instead, a network of inductors and capacitors must be designed to perform the required transformation.



A two-element "L" network is a simple circuit to accomplish the transformation. The easiest way to obtain the L-network values may be to use one of several calculators available on the internet.



For example, let's use this calculator. From the data in your question, we enter the following information:
enter image description here



which produces the following results:
enter image description here



Your matching network looks like this:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



Using SimSmith to plot this transformation on a Smith chart:
enter image description here



shows that the L-network provides a nearly perfect match to your transmitter.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 19:51











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 21:08










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian K1LI
    Apr 4 at 1:27


















2












$begingroup$

Firstly, an SWR of 2.62 is probably acceptable for a receiver, and no additional matching is necessary. See What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?



Also, the IP33 Mini Whip Antenna is an active antenna, meaning it has a preamplifier built-in. Antenna analyzers are good for looking at passive antennas, but looking into a preamplifier may not tell you anything about the preamplifier's output impedance. For that it would be best simply to consult the manual. In any case, that you're using an active antenna only reinforces the notion that matching isn't required here.



But let's say you did want to match this impedance, if only as an exercise. You don't need to calculate the impedance, because the analyzer shows it directly:




Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91




That's the impedance seen by the analyzer, which will also be the impedance seen by receiver. This is looking at the antenna, through the feedline. Your objective is to add some matching network to change that to some target impedance, probably 75+j0 or 50+j0.



There are many ways to design such a matching network, but perhaps the most intuitive is using a Smith chart. I suggest trying an interactive tutorial to get some intuition for how it works.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:21







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:26










  • $begingroup$
    @Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:39







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:58










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 18:01











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
StackExchange.schematics.init();
);
, "cicuitlab");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "520"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






B. Varner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13181%2fdetermining-impedance-with-an-antenna-analyzer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$


How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?




"Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91" is telling you the impedance. The impedance of your antenna is $(167.19 - j63.91)$ ohms.




Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?




That's not how impedance transformation works. You need a matching network, which may contain inductors, capacitors, transformers, chokes, transmission lines, or all of those. Impedance matching is a two-dimensional problem, just as we measure impedance as a complex number with two components.



Furthermore, we don't want to add ohms in the form of a resistor, because while that would, technically, be able to help match the impedance (e.g. in the simple case where the antenna's impedance is too small), it would not improve the signal to the receiver, but merely throw away some of it (dissipated in the antenna).



There's many different ways to design matching networks; I should really link to an introduction to the topic here but I haven't found a good one at the moment.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:09







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 18:06
















3












$begingroup$


How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?




"Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91" is telling you the impedance. The impedance of your antenna is $(167.19 - j63.91)$ ohms.




Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?




That's not how impedance transformation works. You need a matching network, which may contain inductors, capacitors, transformers, chokes, transmission lines, or all of those. Impedance matching is a two-dimensional problem, just as we measure impedance as a complex number with two components.



Furthermore, we don't want to add ohms in the form of a resistor, because while that would, technically, be able to help match the impedance (e.g. in the simple case where the antenna's impedance is too small), it would not improve the signal to the receiver, but merely throw away some of it (dissipated in the antenna).



There's many different ways to design matching networks; I should really link to an introduction to the topic here but I haven't found a good one at the moment.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:09







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 18:06














3












3








3





$begingroup$


How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?




"Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91" is telling you the impedance. The impedance of your antenna is $(167.19 - j63.91)$ ohms.




Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?




That's not how impedance transformation works. You need a matching network, which may contain inductors, capacitors, transformers, chokes, transmission lines, or all of those. Impedance matching is a two-dimensional problem, just as we measure impedance as a complex number with two components.



Furthermore, we don't want to add ohms in the form of a resistor, because while that would, technically, be able to help match the impedance (e.g. in the simple case where the antenna's impedance is too small), it would not improve the signal to the receiver, but merely throw away some of it (dissipated in the antenna).



There's many different ways to design matching networks; I should really link to an introduction to the topic here but I haven't found a good one at the moment.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




How do I convert the above data to provide the impedance of my antenna, at this point, for this tested frequency?




"Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91" is telling you the impedance. The impedance of your antenna is $(167.19 - j63.91)$ ohms.




Then, how many ohms, increase or decrease, would be required to “transform” from the antenna impedance, so it becomes the 75Ω expected for input to the radio?




That's not how impedance transformation works. You need a matching network, which may contain inductors, capacitors, transformers, chokes, transmission lines, or all of those. Impedance matching is a two-dimensional problem, just as we measure impedance as a complex number with two components.



Furthermore, we don't want to add ohms in the form of a resistor, because while that would, technically, be able to help match the impedance (e.g. in the simple case where the antenna's impedance is too small), it would not improve the signal to the receiver, but merely throw away some of it (dissipated in the antenna).



There's many different ways to design matching networks; I should really link to an introduction to the topic here but I haven't found a good one at the moment.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 15:56









Kevin Reid AG6YOKevin Reid AG6YO

16.6k33171




16.6k33171











  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:09







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 18:06

















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 16:09







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Reid AG6YO
    Apr 3 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Waters
    Apr 3 at 18:06
















$begingroup$
Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 16:09





$begingroup$
Thanks! I thought that you could create an Unun for example, with x number of turns. That would increase or decrease the impedance at that point, for example to change the impedance out of the antenna and into a 75Ω coax. How is it possible to do that, if you do not have an actual number in ohms, for the antenna impedance? So you can then know how many turns you need on the Unun to bring the impedance to the needed 75Ω.
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 16:09





1




1




$begingroup$
@B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
$endgroup$
– Kevin Reid AG6YO
Apr 3 at 16:40




$begingroup$
@B.Varner Again, you do have an actual number, it's just a complex number rather than a real one. A transformer, by itself, is sufficient for impedance conversion if and only if the impedance on both ends is real, that is, it is $x,Omega$ rather than $(x + jy),Omega$. You need inductors and compacitors if the impedance is not real (or rather, significantly so, i.e. $y$ is not small compared to $x$).
$endgroup$
– Kevin Reid AG6YO
Apr 3 at 16:40












$begingroup$
@B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 18:06





$begingroup$
@B.Varner To add to Kevin's comment above, it's helpful to realize what a non-zero $j$ operator indicates (in addition to reactance): that the voltage and current are not in phase. That is, one lags the other. It's similar to a power factor less than 1.0 in 60 Hz power distribution systems.
$endgroup$
– Mike Waters
Apr 3 at 18:06












2












$begingroup$

Thanks for following up on your earlier question.



All of the data you provide in your question represents the impedance the analyzer "sees" at the point you measured it. There is no need to convert anything, it's all there, the challenge is how to use it.



Because the impedance you measured at the transmitter end of the feedline to your antenna includes both resistance (167.19$Omega$) and reactance (-63.91$Omega$), "how many ohms, increase or decrease" doesn't fully describe the process by which you transform it to the 75$Omega$ (resistive) output impedance of your rig. Instead, a network of inductors and capacitors must be designed to perform the required transformation.



A two-element "L" network is a simple circuit to accomplish the transformation. The easiest way to obtain the L-network values may be to use one of several calculators available on the internet.



For example, let's use this calculator. From the data in your question, we enter the following information:
enter image description here



which produces the following results:
enter image description here



Your matching network looks like this:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



Using SimSmith to plot this transformation on a Smith chart:
enter image description here



shows that the L-network provides a nearly perfect match to your transmitter.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 19:51











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 21:08










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian K1LI
    Apr 4 at 1:27















2












$begingroup$

Thanks for following up on your earlier question.



All of the data you provide in your question represents the impedance the analyzer "sees" at the point you measured it. There is no need to convert anything, it's all there, the challenge is how to use it.



Because the impedance you measured at the transmitter end of the feedline to your antenna includes both resistance (167.19$Omega$) and reactance (-63.91$Omega$), "how many ohms, increase or decrease" doesn't fully describe the process by which you transform it to the 75$Omega$ (resistive) output impedance of your rig. Instead, a network of inductors and capacitors must be designed to perform the required transformation.



A two-element "L" network is a simple circuit to accomplish the transformation. The easiest way to obtain the L-network values may be to use one of several calculators available on the internet.



For example, let's use this calculator. From the data in your question, we enter the following information:
enter image description here



which produces the following results:
enter image description here



Your matching network looks like this:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



Using SimSmith to plot this transformation on a Smith chart:
enter image description here



shows that the L-network provides a nearly perfect match to your transmitter.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 19:51











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 21:08










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian K1LI
    Apr 4 at 1:27













2












2








2





$begingroup$

Thanks for following up on your earlier question.



All of the data you provide in your question represents the impedance the analyzer "sees" at the point you measured it. There is no need to convert anything, it's all there, the challenge is how to use it.



Because the impedance you measured at the transmitter end of the feedline to your antenna includes both resistance (167.19$Omega$) and reactance (-63.91$Omega$), "how many ohms, increase or decrease" doesn't fully describe the process by which you transform it to the 75$Omega$ (resistive) output impedance of your rig. Instead, a network of inductors and capacitors must be designed to perform the required transformation.



A two-element "L" network is a simple circuit to accomplish the transformation. The easiest way to obtain the L-network values may be to use one of several calculators available on the internet.



For example, let's use this calculator. From the data in your question, we enter the following information:
enter image description here



which produces the following results:
enter image description here



Your matching network looks like this:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



Using SimSmith to plot this transformation on a Smith chart:
enter image description here



shows that the L-network provides a nearly perfect match to your transmitter.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Thanks for following up on your earlier question.



All of the data you provide in your question represents the impedance the analyzer "sees" at the point you measured it. There is no need to convert anything, it's all there, the challenge is how to use it.



Because the impedance you measured at the transmitter end of the feedline to your antenna includes both resistance (167.19$Omega$) and reactance (-63.91$Omega$), "how many ohms, increase or decrease" doesn't fully describe the process by which you transform it to the 75$Omega$ (resistive) output impedance of your rig. Instead, a network of inductors and capacitors must be designed to perform the required transformation.



A two-element "L" network is a simple circuit to accomplish the transformation. The easiest way to obtain the L-network values may be to use one of several calculators available on the internet.



For example, let's use this calculator. From the data in your question, we enter the following information:
enter image description here



which produces the following results:
enter image description here



Your matching network looks like this:





schematic





simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab



Using SimSmith to plot this transformation on a Smith chart:
enter image description here



shows that the L-network provides a nearly perfect match to your transmitter.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 16:42









Brian K1LIBrian K1LI

1,577114




1,577114











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 19:51











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 21:08










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian K1LI
    Apr 4 at 1:27
















  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 19:51











  • $begingroup$
    @BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 21:08










  • $begingroup$
    @B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian K1LI
    Apr 4 at 1:27















$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:11




$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Thank you, thank you very much. This makes some sense. I need however to study it for a while. I am sure I will then come back with questions.......
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:11












$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 19:51





$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Looking through your information, I wanted to be sure that you (And I) are understanding the parameters correctly. 1st-I am not a ham person. I do not have a transmission rig. This antenna is only for receiving AM signals to an AM radio. 2nd-The above measurements were captured at the point where the receiving signal would enter the AM radio, not at the antenna end, because the “transmission” is actually from the antenna to the radio. So, does this not affect the spoken “network of inductors and capacitors”? And therefore make the "matching" network diagram backwards? Yes?
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 19:51













$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 21:08




$begingroup$
@BrianK1L1. Because of my last comment above, should the entries into the calculator not change? INPUTS: Freq=511.2, Source Resistance=167.17, Source Reactance=-63.91, Load Resistance=75, Load Reactance=0. This produces OUTPUTS: L=2.91e-8, C=1.40e-12, Q=1.2 ??????
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 21:08












$begingroup$
@B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
$endgroup$
– Brian K1LI
Apr 4 at 1:27




$begingroup$
@B.Varner Receive only? Do nothing! An SWR of 2.62 might cause difficulties for some transmitters, but reducing the SWR would not materially improve the performance of a receiver. To your second comment, the short answer is, "No." Maximum power transfer between the "radio" and the "antenna system" - which, in your case, includes the transmission line between the radio and the antenna - occurs when radio's input impedance is matched to the feedline, which transformed the antenna's impedance to the value your analyzer measured.
$endgroup$
– Brian K1LI
Apr 4 at 1:27











2












$begingroup$

Firstly, an SWR of 2.62 is probably acceptable for a receiver, and no additional matching is necessary. See What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?



Also, the IP33 Mini Whip Antenna is an active antenna, meaning it has a preamplifier built-in. Antenna analyzers are good for looking at passive antennas, but looking into a preamplifier may not tell you anything about the preamplifier's output impedance. For that it would be best simply to consult the manual. In any case, that you're using an active antenna only reinforces the notion that matching isn't required here.



But let's say you did want to match this impedance, if only as an exercise. You don't need to calculate the impedance, because the analyzer shows it directly:




Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91




That's the impedance seen by the analyzer, which will also be the impedance seen by receiver. This is looking at the antenna, through the feedline. Your objective is to add some matching network to change that to some target impedance, probably 75+j0 or 50+j0.



There are many ways to design such a matching network, but perhaps the most intuitive is using a Smith chart. I suggest trying an interactive tutorial to get some intuition for how it works.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:21







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:26










  • $begingroup$
    @Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:39







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:58










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 18:01















2












$begingroup$

Firstly, an SWR of 2.62 is probably acceptable for a receiver, and no additional matching is necessary. See What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?



Also, the IP33 Mini Whip Antenna is an active antenna, meaning it has a preamplifier built-in. Antenna analyzers are good for looking at passive antennas, but looking into a preamplifier may not tell you anything about the preamplifier's output impedance. For that it would be best simply to consult the manual. In any case, that you're using an active antenna only reinforces the notion that matching isn't required here.



But let's say you did want to match this impedance, if only as an exercise. You don't need to calculate the impedance, because the analyzer shows it directly:




Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91




That's the impedance seen by the analyzer, which will also be the impedance seen by receiver. This is looking at the antenna, through the feedline. Your objective is to add some matching network to change that to some target impedance, probably 75+j0 or 50+j0.



There are many ways to design such a matching network, but perhaps the most intuitive is using a Smith chart. I suggest trying an interactive tutorial to get some intuition for how it works.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:21







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:26










  • $begingroup$
    @Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:39







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:58










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 18:01













2












2








2





$begingroup$

Firstly, an SWR of 2.62 is probably acceptable for a receiver, and no additional matching is necessary. See What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?



Also, the IP33 Mini Whip Antenna is an active antenna, meaning it has a preamplifier built-in. Antenna analyzers are good for looking at passive antennas, but looking into a preamplifier may not tell you anything about the preamplifier's output impedance. For that it would be best simply to consult the manual. In any case, that you're using an active antenna only reinforces the notion that matching isn't required here.



But let's say you did want to match this impedance, if only as an exercise. You don't need to calculate the impedance, because the analyzer shows it directly:




Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91




That's the impedance seen by the analyzer, which will also be the impedance seen by receiver. This is looking at the antenna, through the feedline. Your objective is to add some matching network to change that to some target impedance, probably 75+j0 or 50+j0.



There are many ways to design such a matching network, but perhaps the most intuitive is using a Smith chart. I suggest trying an interactive tutorial to get some intuition for how it works.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Firstly, an SWR of 2.62 is probably acceptable for a receiver, and no additional matching is necessary. See What is the relationship between SWR and receive performance?



Also, the IP33 Mini Whip Antenna is an active antenna, meaning it has a preamplifier built-in. Antenna analyzers are good for looking at passive antennas, but looking into a preamplifier may not tell you anything about the preamplifier's output impedance. For that it would be best simply to consult the manual. In any case, that you're using an active antenna only reinforces the notion that matching isn't required here.



But let's say you did want to match this impedance, if only as an exercise. You don't need to calculate the impedance, because the analyzer shows it directly:




Z (Ω) = 167.19 - j63.91




That's the impedance seen by the analyzer, which will also be the impedance seen by receiver. This is looking at the antenna, through the feedline. Your objective is to add some matching network to change that to some target impedance, probably 75+j0 or 50+j0.



There are many ways to design such a matching network, but perhaps the most intuitive is using a Smith chart. I suggest trying an interactive tutorial to get some intuition for how it works.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 3 at 17:05









Phil Frost - W8IIPhil Frost - W8II

29.1k147118




29.1k147118











  • $begingroup$
    I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:21







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:26










  • $begingroup$
    @Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:39







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:58










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 18:01
















  • $begingroup$
    I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:21







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:26










  • $begingroup$
    @Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 17:39







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
    $endgroup$
    – Phil Frost - W8II
    Apr 3 at 17:58










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
    $endgroup$
    – B. Varner
    Apr 3 at 18:01















$begingroup$
I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:21





$begingroup$
I agree. I am really measuring this antenna because it is what I have at the moment + I have a new antenna analyzer! Plus, I wanted to know the measurements for an antenna that someone else built the boards for. I understand it is an active antenna (No power for measurements). Are the numbers then not relevant at all? I guess people are looking at my example in total and seeing issues. I am just using this example to better understand the basics. Everywhere on the internet where Balun's are discussed, they talk about Balan's changing impedance from xΩ to xΩ. Will check these out.......
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:21





3




3




$begingroup$
@B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
$endgroup$
– Phil Frost - W8II
Apr 3 at 17:26




$begingroup$
@B.Varner The numbers aren't really relevant at all, because the preamplifier consists of nonlinear, active components. Its behavior when off is not the same as when its on, and when it's on, you wouldn't want to connect the antenna analyzer since then you'd have two signal generators on the line which would be at least weird, at worst damaging.
$endgroup$
– Phil Frost - W8II
Apr 3 at 17:26












$begingroup$
@Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:39





$begingroup$
@Frost-W8II. Understand. But...... Since this Whip Antenna will connect to a length of 75Ω cable (Say roof to near the radio, BEFORE it attaches to the pre-amplifier, would it not still be beneficial to have something in line at the point where the antenna connects to the 1st cable to improve matching? Or as in this case, I am checking to see if the antenna already actually matches a 75Ω cable? By-the-way I do have measurements from that point in the system also. Hoping I am making sense here.........
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 17:39





1




1




$begingroup$
@B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
$endgroup$
– Phil Frost - W8II
Apr 3 at 17:58




$begingroup$
@B.Varner the preamplifier is almost certainly already designed to drive coax, so no additional matching is required.
$endgroup$
– Phil Frost - W8II
Apr 3 at 17:58












$begingroup$
Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 18:01




$begingroup$
Yes, what I figured. I still want to continue the exercise to help understand the figures for the next "proper" antenna.
$endgroup$
– B. Varner
Apr 3 at 18:01










B. Varner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















B. Varner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












B. Varner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











B. Varner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Amateur Radio Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13181%2fdetermining-impedance-with-an-antenna-analyzer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020