Bubblesdee wrote:
Hi

...
I recently aquired a S350DL receiver. ...

Stumbled across this on the net (article describes an rf
transformer/antenna he uses--pay attention to the direction of the
windings on the toroid):

http://www.qrp.pops.net/swl-ant.asp

and thought about your S350Dl and thought I would let you give it a read ...

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

Thanks John and everyone for your responses.

It looks like I am going to have to learn how to wind some baluns up.

I will keep you posted on progress

Thanks again

In message , John Smith
writes
Bubblesdee wrote:
Hi

...
I recently aquired a S350DL receiver. ...

Stumbled across this on the net (article describes an rf
transformer/antenna he uses--pay attention to the direction of the
windings on the toroid):

http://www.qrp.pops.net/swl-ant.asp

and thought about your S350Dl and thought I would let you give it a read ...

Regards,
JS

This is an example of the 'traditional' 9:1 impedance transformer which,
on most MW and SW frequencies, gives a better match between the antenna
impedance and a 50 or 75 ohm receiver input impedance. On relatively
narrow bands of frequencies where the antenna impedance is naturally
lowish (where it is near odd multiples of a quarterwave), the match will
actually be made worse than if the transformer were not used. This
obviously depends on the physical length of the antenna. In the diagram,
the antenna length shown is 33m (say 100'), which is not far short of a
quarterwave on 160m. However, on the MW band, and on various parts of
the SW band, the transformer should improve reception.

I note that the writer correctly stresses that that the transformer is
an 'UNUN' (an accurate - but ugly - word). Many similar articles about -
and adverts for - these devices WILL insist on calling them baluns
(which, of course, they are certainly not).

The direction of either winding on the torroid should not matter one
bit.
--
Ian.

Ian Jackson wrote:

This is an example of the 'traditional' 9:1 impedance transformer which,
on most MW and SW frequencies, gives a better match between the antenna
impedance and a 50 or 75 ohm receiver input impedance. On relatively
narrow bands of frequencies where the antenna impedance is naturally
lowish (where it is near odd multiples of a quarterwave), the match will
actually be made worse than if the transformer were not used. This
obviously depends on the physical length of the antenna. In the diagram,
the antenna length shown is 33m (say 100'), which is not far short of a
quarterwave on 160m. However, on the MW band, and on various parts of
the SW band, the transformer should improve reception.


Actually, the antenna terminals for the HF bands is marked "500 Ohm" on
my S350DL, 9 X 500 = 4,500 Ohms (the transformation I would expect from
a 9:1.) However, the author did claim an improvement of a number of
S-Units on his S350DL. This made me wonder, since I didn't want to
build it to see what was up, I just passed it along. I would not call
the author a "liar" without absolute confirmation ... who knows, perhaps
his "antenna arrangement" has resulted, somehow, in the end of that
(actually off center feed point) being 4,500 Ohms--perhaps Grundig lied
and the antenna terminals do exhibit a 50 Ohm impedance--I am lazy ...
some youngster can figure it out ... ;-)

I note that the writer correctly stresses that that the transformer is
an 'UNUN' (an accurate - but ugly - word).

Actually, I would not refer to it as an UNUN. A balun is a TLT device,
in following, and since UNUN was coined from balun, I would expect UNUN
to only apply to TLT devices. The device in the article is a simple RF
Transformer ... I like UN-UN, and the logic of following the naming
convention of the Bal-Un is followed, making it "intuitive."

Many similar articles about -
and adverts for - these devices WILL insist on calling them baluns
(which, of course, they are certainly not).

The direction of either winding on the torroid should not matter one bit.

The device here is not, IMHO, an UNUN, it is an RF Transformer, my first
post referred to it as such ... The winding direction, in regards to the
relationship of the direction of one winding to the other, matters a
great deal--indeed, since a 180 degree phase relationship is at stake,
the direction causes one to be an "opposite" of the other ... I have
always found the phase reversal winding direction(s) to exhibit superior
behaviors ...

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

John

You hit the nail right on the head about the S350DL having a 500 ohm input but no 50 ohm input. I had the exact same questions that you brought up so I E-mailed the author to clarify some of the questions. I have a feeling that he is not using a S350 but an actual comm receiver with a 50 ohm input.

Still waiting for a reply..

I have not experience winding baluns so I will ask one more question, making it as general as possible, So here goes.

How do I wind/build a "Current Balun" (I state a current balun because all I am try to do is reduce RFI noise and change from a balanced antenna to an unbalance input) That has a ratio of 1:1, and preserves the impedance on either side of it. I would preferr not to use bead but a Torrid instead

example :

450 ohm antenna input impedance (balanced)---- balun-----450 ohm external antenna jack on my radio.

Now, on another note, my problem might be that I do not fully understand that the input impedance of a T2FD antenna changes depending on what frequencies I am trying to receive. Would this be a correct statement?

If so, I will most likely need an atenna Tuner correct??

Once again, I appreciate everyones help. This continues to be a great learing experience.

Bubblesdee wrote:

...
Once again, I appreciate everyones help. This continues to be a great
learing experience.

Oh, Bubblesdee, do not think "I know something." I have watched far
stranger "hook-ups" than what we debate, work!

If you have the core, if you have the wire, you can attempt multiple
configurations, hook them up to your receiver, and "KNOW FOR CERTAIN!"
Wind 'em one way, then the other. If you do as "he" did, on a PCB, they
a tough with a soldering iron, a few turns in the opposite
direction--you have learned something new (self-education!)--the world
it yours, quit asking these "dummies" and KNOW!

I am "caustic" to some of the "know it alls'" here, just because they
are stupid and I have done the homework to know it ...

I honestly would expect the author in question noted an improvement,
recorded it in his text--and let it stand. I would not be so surprised
if you duplicated his instructions and met with an improvement(s) in the
direction you are headed--indeed, this is the major reason I "passed
them along to you."

Too often, you only find "idiots" here ... :-)

Good luck, "wind 'em a few ways", experiment, you have data close enough
to achieve you ends easily, with only a few tweaks!

Warmest regards
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

Bubblesdee wrote:
How do I wind/build a "Current Balun"

Ten turns of RG-400 on an FT-240-77 or
FT-240-43 toroid. That's what I did.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Ten turns of RG-400 on an FT-240-77 or
FT-240-43 toroid. That's what I did.

.... you have a way of making it sound too easy ...

Regards,
JS

--
It is like a nightmare where the public servants are the people which
the police are supposed to protect us from!

John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ten turns of RG-400 on an FT-240-77 or
FT-240-43 toroid. That's what I did.

... you have a way of making it sound too easy ...

If you want more difficulty, stack the two toroids
together and wind ten turns of RG-400 on them. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com