mAT-40 Automatic Antenna Tuner Versus End Fed Halfwave EFHW 

Had the same wire connection issue with my CG 3000. I had another issue with the co- ax connector at the other end. I decided to repair both myself. I contacted Wimo, not looking for anything,but just to make them aware of the problems.They apologised and sent me a voucher for my next purchase. I have had no issues with my other CG3000 tuner. Well done Wimo.

I have used an AH-4 (which is the Icom version of the mAT-40). The tuner works very well, but hams often forget to install a proper radial field (the other half of the antenna). Your single wire to a ground rod is where most of the problem lies. It's not a low enough impedance there and so the tuner (total antenna system) is using the control cable and the coax shield as a counterpoise, which is why we hear a much higher noise level in the video. Both tuners can also be used to feed a doublet, either with ladder line, or having the tuner mounted on a mast and feeding each side of a dipole. You MUST attach a balun choke to the coax AND another choke to the control cable, both at the tuner. This will force equal currents into each half of the doublet and allow the tuner to "float" above ground potential (aka balanced). 73 OM

👍Thanks for doing the video. These external "tuners" make a lot of sense compared to having an "ATU" in the shack or using rig's internal ATU. If an ATU is required, it really should be at the antenna feedpoint.

I think you should try it on your “EFHW” as you said with out the transformer. Not sure what your ground system is with the EFHF but you could simply use it or a simple ground rod. Yes more wire and higher is usually going to be better but you also need to consider your pattern. The EFHW has the same pattern as a halfwave dipole if it is a horizontal halfwave. As an inverted L halfwave the pattern will be somewhat different due to the vertical portion. As you go higher in frequency the pattern can get complex and the number of nulls in the horizontal pattern increases while the vertical portion may tend to fill in some nulls. I think a halfwave horizontal section, measuring back from the far end to the bend on the inverted L will give best DX results on higher bands like 20 meters. On 40 it will also give good all round results but for DX the vertical portion needs to be long and the maximum current should be located about halfway up on the vertical section. That means the total wire length would be between a quarter and a half wave long. It’s hard to get a good pattern on all bands on a multiband antenna. I have had great success with end fed wires with simple ground rods and minimal radials, even on 160 meters. For example my 160 meter inverted L is about 3/8 wave long. The high current point is always 1/4 wave back from the open end and that puts it about the middle of my vertical portion. That inverted L is really a top loaded vertical for DX. To get my 160 meter DXCC I used from zero to 2 radials. So minimal ground systems do work! Could I have had a better ground? Definitely. Would I have noticed the difference? I doubt it.

Hi Mat, Great video. I owned the mAT40 for a period of time. It was a decent tuner but I hated that extra control cable. Looking at your results the 49:1 with antenna up to 80 meters seems indeed better than the shorter wire and lower setup on the mAT40. For me on 40 meters the have the same results. I'm looking aht the new CHA URT1 (made by mat tuners LTD for Chameleon) or the new mAT50 (powered over coax) ... Cheers, Phil ON4VP

Hello Tech minds , I would like to ask if you know the Key fonction of the PIN input control, I attempted to use the mat-40 to tune the Codan NGT SRx. With your existing interface cable maybe you can identify it. Thanks

Results as expected. The EFHW, seemed quieter, and received pretty much all station better, I saw maybe one station that was stronger on the MAT-40, but both antennas picked it up well. Will the MAT-40 work better with more wire? Extremely likely, will it work better a bit higher up? Depends on if your were receiving NVIS signals. While I like the idea of the external tuner, I think you they are best at getting more bands, but not getting them in better. If you don’t have room for a 40 or 80m EFHW, these are a great option. Also, if you have gobs of room to run more than 40m of wire, this could be the bees knees. At that point however, a full wave loop antenna is probably the best bet if you have that much room. For the money. A true 80m EFHW is tough to beat.

You didn't mention the big difference in noise floor between the two antennas. Is that because one of them was after the 7300 front end perhaps ?

I have an 80-10m EFHW 49:1 and it works really well, I do think the IMAX 2000 is better for 10m but could be down to the different polarisation of the other signals either but in general the IMAX 2000 seems to pull in signals much better at times. I notice the same on 11 which of course the EFHW isn't resonant on. The only real reason I think to use a tuner is for when you want to work non resonant bands but since the 80-10m has all the bands I need I don't see the need for a tuner + for use with the acom 1000 the EFHW saves me a lot of money by not having to buy a tuner that can handle the power. I suppose for experimentation the external tuner might be some fun to test out if it's cheap enough. I also find my EFHW 49:1 a quiet antenna.

I bought one of these to use with FTDX-10. No luck so far, it attempts to tune once and then stops working.

I have a Yaesu FT1000MP, but have found that its tuner socket is larger than, for example the 7300 and 857. The MT-40 Yaesu adaptor cable therefore doesn’t fit the FT1000MP. Does anyone have any advice on how to adapt the Yaesu adaptor end cable to fit my radio? Thanks John M0JWA.

Here's hoping you cover the MAT-10, as the Elecraft T1 are a bit like hens teeth

By looking at the connectors and the cover it looks like the connectors have a seal along with the rear cover. Perhaps the plug is there because the case was filled with a gas like argon to help keep the enclosure water proof. This would be like a rifle scope that is nitrogen or argon filled. Just a thought and if so by removing the cover you will let the gas out.

What brand are your fiberglass poles ?

Many thanks for sharing / 73

I would have liked the test with a common antenna and swap out the ATU with the endfed matching network.

Some "Yelp" reviewer will trash it

Why don't you use the SI-units in your video? Imperial messurement is not the right choise to show up a device to 'the rest', ... oh I am sorry ... , 'the most' of the world! All use the metric system, also NASA does, ... ! What's wrong, not using the correct 'meter'? Please, when using imperial messurement, translate them to the SI (metric) units. I am so tired to re-calculate all the 'feet' and 'miles', to meter and millimeter! Who in the whole world, is using that old system anymore? (You will find only 3 countries!) Be so nice, do a step forward, to the future of all of us, ... ! 73 de Markus - db9pz (JN39fq - "3miles"/5km east of LX)