Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Isolation of guy wires
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: .... A choke at a high-impedance point doesn't do much, since there's no substantial current at that location to block. You should put the choke about a quarter wavelength from there where the current is nominally high. The presence of the choke can move the locations of high and low voltage and current points, so you'll need a choke at least about every quarter wavelength to make sure there's no point where substantial current can occur. Roy, NEC models suggest that lossy chokes (eg suppression sleeves or cores where Q is very small) don't modify the current distribution much unless they are of sufficiently large impedance, and that introduction of low Z chokes just introduces another loss without much impact on the current distribution or resultant antenna pattern. The magnitude of Z needed to be effective in forcing a current minimum at a point might be quite impractical to implement using suppression sleeves, so the time honoured insulator looks the better solution. Owen |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Isolation of guy wires
Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy, NEC models suggest that lossy chokes (eg suppression sleeves or cores where Q is very small) don't modify the current distribution much unless they are of sufficiently large impedance, and that introduction of low Z chokes just introduces another loss without much impact on the current distribution or resultant antenna pattern. The magnitude of Z needed to be effective in forcing a current minimum at a point might be quite impractical to implement using suppression sleeves, so the time honoured insulator looks the better solution. Yes, that's exactly the point I've been trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make. It is practical to use ferrite sleeves for suppression of current at a single point or a couple of points, as Walt Maxwell pointed out some time ago. Often called the "W2DU balun", it's done by putting a lot of cores -- typical several tens of cores -- over the line. But you wouldn't want to do this at a dozen or two points on guy wires. I personally prefer to use multiple turns on a single core, because ten turns on one core gives the same impedance a single pass through 100 cores. But then I don't run so much power that I need to use RG-8 or larger size cable or go to heroic efforts to insulate the turns on a single core. The guy wire requirements would be about the same as for a "current balun" (common mode choke) -- somewhere around 500 - 1000 ohms is typically necessary. At that impedance level, it makes no difference whether the impedance is reactive or resistive from the standpoint of effectiveness in choking current or in terms of dB loss. But there can still be enough power dissipated to overheat the cores if they're resistive and the power level is very high. Then you're stuck with using ferrites which are more reactive and less resistive (e.g., Fair-Rite 60 series), but they also give you a lot less impedance per core so you need more cores yet. That makes the ferrite solution even less attractive. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB Telos ISDN and isolation booth (Chicago) | Broadcasting | |||
WTB Isolation Transformer | Swap | |||
F.S. Isolation Transformer n.o.s. | Boatanchors | |||
isolation transformer | Equipment | |||
isolation transformer | Equipment |