Baluns?
 

Well, I have never met "a new energy source" either. Does this mean I
can now dismiss all possibilities and go out into the world preaching
that all sources of energy have now been discovered and we are doomed?

Funny, where I come from, logic just doesn't work like that ...

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

At least you are able to wrestle with your own logic.

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is a
fantasy construct.
The would likely be assassinated in the Media.



Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion of
evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.

It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe in:

1) A thinking mind created "all."

2) ALL spontaneously came into being.

The first requires a belief in God.

The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
"machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements in
the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space composed of
"absolute nothing."

On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
possibility of either.

However, it is obvious one is correct ...

Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
possibility--well, that is simply insanity!

Occams' Razor is clear on which would be chosen ... the aliens, at least
for the short term explanation ...

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

Well, I have never met "a new energy source" either. Does this mean I
can now dismiss all possibilities and go out into the world preaching
that all sources of energy have now been discovered and we are doomed?

Funny, where I come from, logic just doesn't work like that ...

Just because God knows how everything will turn out, doesn't mean our
choises are of no value.

I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but since the subject is
changed again:

I would like to see a new energy source. I have some doubt I will find it
on YouTube, but those chances are greater than if I built it out of my junk
box. Such things will likely come at great expense. My solar experiments
only account for a small percentage of my electric usage but I have managed
to cut my gas bill drastically. Some could argue it is the oldest energy
source out there. Everyday we are bombarded by a whole lot of energy that
just heats up the roof. I have cut my bill by simply putting to use the
energy that would have only heated up my roof or my South side.

The point is we should all be thinking about such things rather than
expecting some government "fall guy" to fix it for us by digging deeper into
our pockets for "party money". What we have when we foist our
responsibilities on the government, are big screwups by people who are too
removed from the problem to have a hope to fix anything by throwing money on
scam artists. The Castro government comes to mind as a perfect example.
Just throw money at the government and it becomes fat, and lazy and a burden
to those who see a need and fulfill it. The job of a President should be to
inspire rather than shoulder incessant ridicule that cripples our nation's
credibility in the world. Those who ridicule should stop and provide some
useful input or shoulder responsibility themselves rather than hoping for
disaster to vindicate their bad attitude.

If we ever do find a race of aliens, I would hope we would hear from them by
radio first. There is no reason to think there couldn't be, but if they
were close enough for it to matter, we should have heard from them by now.

Unless they consider on-off keying (or radio in general) to be obsolete,
beneath them, and hate everyone who uses it because they won't waste their
time learning it, then look out.

Since our subject is still baluns, I have used Fiberglass tape on Torroids
and solenoid windings because they heat up. Other things deteriorate. I
use that because I have some. I couldn't tell anyone what would be best in
the long run for UV. It is a big problem. Heat means loss. I prefer to do
away with the need for baluns and other elements that don't contribute to
radiating the energy.

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
Since our subject is still baluns, I have used Fiberglass tape on Torroids
and solenoid windings because they heat up. Other things deteriorate. I
use that because I have some. I couldn't tell anyone what would be best in
the long run for UV. It is a big problem. Heat means loss. I prefer to do
away with the need for baluns and other elements that don't contribute to
radiating the energy.



Go to a larger core, stack large cores to lower power density per cubic
centimeter of core material--adjust core material to compensate for
increased inductance, etc.

Proper functioning of the balun hinges on proper design/material, of
course ...

Now is one is designing an electric heater, ni-chrome wire might be
implemented in the design--perhaps a "ceramic tape", etc. ... 8-)

Regards,
JS

Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is
a
fantasy construct.
The[y] would likely be assassinated in the Media.
A little dry humor
Fantasy isn't harmfull unless we base conclusions on it.



Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion of
evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.

Wrong. You are correct though in characterizing evolution as a religion.

Evolution theory functions as centerpiece of some wonder, but there are
glaring problems: No evidence of missing links in the face of Tons of
fossil evidence of a great variety of unique species (notwithstanding
sub-species that are obviously related). Evidence suggest that species
would have had to spontaneously come into being en masse from extreme
outbreaks of very specific mutation. Creation would make more sense than
that because mutation overwhelmingly is a deterioration resulting in a loss
of viability. Additionally, Life even in what we would consider simple
one-celled organisms are in fact highly organized and cooperative
communities of seemingly intelligently flexible or single purpose
mechanisms. None of which would survive without the viability of the whole
organism. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither could have
been viable or accidentally come into being on their own. Then where are
the fossils of the supposed transitional species. We know there is some
flexibility within the species for adaptation, but new species are a great
leap over a nonexistent bridge. The evolution theory was actually based only
on observations and wrong conclusions and even Darwin thought to abandon it.
It might not have survived to this day if it were not commandeered for it's
political value to justify revolution, genocide and a notion that in order
for an idea to be viable, all others must be destroyed. The notion that
apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures. Today
we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting sprees
and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.

It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe in:

1) A thinking mind created "all."

2) ALL spontaneously came into being.

The first requires a belief in God.

The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
"machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements in
the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space composed of
"absolute nothing."

OK, essentially GOD or No GOD.

On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
possibility of either.

However, it is obvious one is correct ...

It is obvious that life operates with great intelligence despite our
conscous will, so we have that much proof of intelligence although not much
of it comes to our awareness with that much regularity.


Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
possibility--well, that is simply insanity!

Occams' Razor is clear on which would be chosen ... the aliens, at least
for the short term explanation ...

So Aliens created the universe? Occam's Razor is only an expedient. It
only works for simplicity's sake and calls us to make assumptions where our
understanding fails. The scientific mind would ponder and record the
evidence allowing for lack of understanding rather than summarily executing
God, or constructing explanations simply to deny God. All too often I see
experiments that are discredited because the results cannot be
satisfactorily explained by the answer sought. A belief in God should not
be such a problem for those who don't believe unless their wicked nature
makes it so.

Baluns?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is
a
fantasy construct.

Couldn't the same thing be said about God?

Then couldn't the same be said of all recorded history
where the witnesses can no longer be cross-examined, ruined, executed?

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason. Also that witnesses may not have fully understood all they
heard or saw, but reported because it was noteworthy. This also lends to
credibility, because those with a hidden agenda usually restrain themselves
from presenting testimony that doesn't contribute to their argument.

There is more evidence to support much of what is recorded in the Bible,
than required to convict someone of Murder. I would suggest a book by Lee
Strobel, "The Case for Christ" as a method to ordering and initiating their
own logical investigation. In the end you will have to be open to the Holy
Spirit before anything can come of it. Salvation comes by invitation only.
My own conclusions came when I realized the teachings of Christ were the
only hope of saving the human race from it's own self-destruction. Further,
that it could succeed against the odds.

Baluns?
 

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Baluns?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their
own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for
any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

BTW Gustav is picking up strength

Baluns?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:11:49 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason.

This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.

Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,
Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
participants.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Baluns?
 

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:03:45 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.

Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
proportion.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.

Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

BTW Gustav is picking up strength



You will have to forgive Richard and allow for his limitations ...
without a personality to attack, he is like a fish out of water.

Unable to form properly formatted text to argue text on its' merits
alone, you will frequently encounter these "dead ends" in exchanges with
him ... undoubtedly, you will learn to adapt.

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

...
Hi Richard,
Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
participants.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

TRANSLATION FOR THE MASSES:

Discuss what Tom wishes to discuss, within the scope and boundaries Tom
specifies or else risk subscription to his "Chit List!"

This ain't no hobby group! Yanno? Here we subscribe to the "arrl
Professionals Standards!" :-P

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

I use an ugly balun with an attic GRrV and do not suffer significant
back-RFI to my transceiver in the regular frequency ranges. I think
that by chosing 1Kohm that may be a bit conservative. In (old)
engineering school, we tended to use an order of magnitude (X10) as
our highly arbitrary :) cut-off point for impedances that have a
significant effect. You are doing that too but by using 1000 ohms, you
are using (X10 times 2) as your arbitrary cutoff point. Since the
filter is an exponential curve, if you chose 500 ohms instead of 1000
ohms, you might even get a 4 or 5 to 1 frequency range. In my case I
use two different turns chokes so that is why I think I am covered
pretty well. Your information is very interesting; good to see people
are actually measuring things!


On Aug 28, 8:45*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Highland Ham wrote:
Also: *http://www.hamuniverse.com/balun.html*(many pictures)
================
Nice URL with excellent info

The problem with ugly baluns is their limited frequency
ranges. In the following measurements, the choking
impedance was over 1k ohms for only small ranges of
frequencies, 19-29 MHz, 10-22 MHz, 16-25 MHz, 8-16 MHz,
5-8 MHz - frequency ranges of 2/1 or less. HF covers
a 10/1 frequency range.

http://www.k1ttt.net/technote/airbalun.html
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Baluns?
 

Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains. A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow. I agree that the effect is
the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
there for a different reason.

Dan

On Aug 28, 2:26*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.

Baluns?
 

"JB" wrote in news:kEcuk.69$393.25@trnddc05:


"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message
...

"JB" wrote in message
news:5%Ztk.29$Af3.22@trnddc06...
whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:22



Verily, he who sits upon a hot iron shall be branded in the end.

--
Alfred
E. Newman

At least we found someone with a sense of humor.




The way I heard that was, He who sits upon a hot iron shall rise again..


John W3JXP

Baluns?
 

"JB" wrote in news:bGguk.63$Dj1.42@trnddc02:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your
statement is
a
fantasy construct.
The[y] would likely be assassinated in the Media.
A little dry humor
Fantasy isn't harmfull unless we base conclusions on it.



Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion
of evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.

Wrong. You are correct though in characterizing evolution as a
religion.

Oh joy, another "Evolution is a religion" person.

Evolution theory functions as centerpiece of some wonder, but there
are glaring problems: No evidence of missing links in the face of
Tons of fossil evidence of a great variety of unique species
(notwithstanding sub-species that are obviously related).

Where do you get this from, some textbook from the late 1800's?
There is so much evidence of linkage today that your statement is 100
percent incorrect.


Evidence
suggest that species would have had to spontaneously come into being
en masse from extreme outbreaks of very specific mutation.

Citations please?


Creation
would make more sense than that because mutation overwhelmingly is a
deterioration resulting in a loss of viability.

While "mutation" can often be detrimental, we have to determine if you
define mutations as genetic variability. Is a person who is efficent at
storing fat a mutation as compared to one with a fast metabolism? Natural
selection selects for that efficient person in times of little food.


Additionally, Life
even in what we would consider simple one-celled organisms are in fact
highly organized and cooperative communities of seemingly
intelligently flexible or single purpose mechanisms.

Check out Lipid cells - they are a significant step in self organizing
structures.

None of which
would survive without the viability of the whole organism.

Organisms that have become more complex do depend on that complexity.

So which
came first, the chicken or the egg?

Now this is the zenith of science!

At any given time since "chickens have come into existance, they just lay
eggs, and more chickens come about. If there was some way to pinpointa
pre-chicke, the egg would be the first part. The pre-chicken hatches the
first chicken. But it doesn't work that way.

Neither could have been viable or
accidentally come into being on their own.

That is the supposition of the answer.


Then where are the fossils
of the supposed transitional species. We know there is some
flexibility within the species for adaptation, but new species are a
great leap over a nonexistent bridge.

So, are you saying that every possible fossil has been discovered?

Where did all those animals go anyhow, and why are not modern men's
fossils in the earliest stratum?


The evolution theory was
actually based only on observations and wrong conclusions and even
Darwin thought to abandon it. It might not have survived to this day
if it were not commandeered for it's political value to justify
revolution, genocide and a notion that in order for an idea to be
viable, all others must be destroyed.

Citations please?

The notion that apes
transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures.

Wrong. Humans did not descend from apes. We did not evolve from apes.

It is exceptionally difficult to make a rational argument when the same
old LIE is repeated over and over again.


Today we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on
shooting sprees and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me
about evolution.

Are you serious? Quite the non-sequitar.

It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe
in:

1) A thinking mind created "all."

2) ALL spontaneously came into being.

The first requires a belief in God.

The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
"machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements
in the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space
composed of "absolute nothing."

OK, essentially GOD or No GOD.

If you are serious about this, you are listening to the wrong people.
There is no reason that a god could not create a universe in which every
singel evolutionary concept would appear as we have seen. This god could
also create every being as wildly different in structure, different
cellular metabolism, or even more effective, create everything as sacs of
goo with no perceptable means of "living" but living none the less.


On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
possibility of either.

However, it is obvious one is correct ...

Wrong. There is the third possibility that something created the universe
and the life in it, and allowed it to go it's way. If it eveloved fine,
if not, fine.


It is obvious that life operates with great intelligence despite our
conscous will, so we have that much proof of intelligence although not
much of it comes to our awareness with that much regularity.


Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
possibility--well, that is simply insanity!

Different folks have a different definition of insanity. You have so many
wrong suppositions in your beliefs, such as evolution as the beginning
of life - it makes no such claims. The no transitional forms - there are
plenty, and more showing up all the time. The idea of irreducable
complexity as you point out in your earlier cellular part. Many of the
things that are presumably too complex, such as the human eye, can be
shown to have many present day light sensing processes that run the gamut
from simple sensing, to rudimentary lenses, to the human eye, to those of
raptors.

To qoute oft repeated and very wrong precepts is disingenuous at best. In
extreme cases, it starts to look as if a person is "lying for God". And
he doesn't like that!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:
... The notion that
apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures. Today
we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting sprees
and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
...

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
... The notion that
apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures.
Today
we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting
sprees
and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
...

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.

Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.

Now consider that all members/parts/factories/roads/power/lights/political
parties in the system have to work together and if one part is out of place
the system crashes and the organism never happens.

Here is another puzzlement. It seems that the difference between Man and
Woman are that one end of the structure is slightly goofed so that between
the woman and man several traits are either activated or not. Other than
that they are the same structure. But how can you say that one is evolved
differently from the other?!? With out the difference, the species would
never have been so it could have nothing to do with evolution, leading one
to expect a spontaneous event {*POP*} where both could continue as one flesh
so to speak as there would never have been time for an evolutionary change
to allow them both to evolve into a viable species.

Consider this: One translation says "You formed me even in the womb from
the lower parts of the earth" Or to that effect. could the translation as
easily be designed and programmed elementally in the womb. Certainly fits
what is actually happening, but what does a sheppard boy know of DNA?



First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.


A toy serves a different purpose than a diesel truck. Those purposes
cannot be confused with what they are built from--a dung beetle is
constructed for a different purpose than a human ...

...

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

Baluns?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're
talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings.
Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but
stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
The only thing
in common with various different species are proteins, and they aren't
even life. I contend that the complexities involved are too astronomical to
be accidental because outside of minor adaptability that are wired for,
changes from one species to another couldn't happen one step at a time, it
would be just as probable if male and female of a species popped out ready
made. You cant make a semi out of a VW bug without recycling and
redesigning it from the ground up.

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

There is no place for rational debate on this subject (and many others) in
most colleges. It conflicts with the agenda to promote Globalism, Marxism
and
homosexuality, and especially the denial of God, national unity, or any
authority above the Global Socialist state. Karl Marx was a seminary
student when he stumbled onto Darwin's book. After reading it, he lost his
faith and went to formulate his own theories of life and revolution. Hitler
also read Darwin's book and made references to it in Mein Kamph and other
works to justify ridding the world of "inferior species" in order to promote
evolution. Darwin became an Atheist because he couldn't bear the thought of
his Father going to Hell for committing suicide and sought to promote
Atheism. Interesting to note, several of his children had birth defects.

I present this in the context that Darwin promoted:
1. That all life on the planet evolved from mud and through slow evolution,
2. All species evolved from a single celled organism that evolved
spontaneously from mixtures of "primordial ooze" and inevitably,
3. There is no god, no purpose in life but to be killed and eaten
by another organism.

In fact, there is no more proof of those ideas, than of the idea that a
great
number of species spontaneously emerged over a short time and make
environmental changes within the limitations of the DNA and viability.

However, since there is no research money for God, the Darwin theory
persists because the alternative is unthinkable.

Baluns?
 

In message , John Smith
writes
JB wrote:
... The notion that
apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures. Today
we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting sprees
and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
...

If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.

First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)

We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.
--
Ian

Baluns?
 

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.

Hi Ian,

Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Baluns?
 

Dan wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:26*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.

Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.

That is too far narrow a definition of a "common mode choke",
especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.

A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.

What exactly do you mean by that?

And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
feedline?

I agree that the effect is
the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
there for a different reason.

Not in my station. My motivation for using common-mode chokes is
*specifically* to control any incoming and outgoing interference that
may be caused by common-mode currents on the feedline.

When the common-mode component of the feedline is reduced, it will also
be accompanied by an improvement in "balance" on the antenna, because
the two things go together (or at least, they do for some definitions of
that word). But "balance" is never my primary goal because I don't find
the concept helpful, either when deciding what to do next or when
evaluating the results.



--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Baluns?
 

Ian Jackson wrote:

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.

Ian:

How about just disabling it, that was really enough of that anyway ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
...

Iron is iron, whether in a pure form, alloys, rust or other ferric
compounds. Silicon is silicon, whether in a window pane, silicon oxide,
or some other compound of silicon. Calcium is calcium, whether in
limestone, cement, earth, or other calcium compounds, etc., etc. ...

Back when I was in college, someone did some computations of how the
body of Plato would have decayed and been dispersed throughout the world
in the thousands of years since his death. They arrived at the
conclusion that everyone on the planet would have at least 6 molecules
from Platos' body in their own bodies (mostly water molecules since that
is the major component of the human body) ... I cannot verify the
accuracy of those computations--however, you get the drift--I am part
Plato! grin

Regards,
JS

Baluns?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Hi Ian,

Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Has someone snuck into this forum and now lies under the bleachers
bellowing for help? I thought I heard some inane and insane rantings
from an individual out of his mind with pain!

Reminds me of that poor b*st*ard which used to go around mumbling quotes
from Shakespeare in reply to technical discussions ... at least he is
gone for the moment, or so it might seem. :-)

Regards,
JS

Baluns?
 

In message , John Smith
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.

Ian:

How about just disabling it, that was really enough of that anyway ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

No, I like the sentiment expressed. It's just the typo that is getting
to me!!!
--
Ian

Baluns?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Hi Ian,

Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hmmm, playing, "I am taking the high road game, huh?

Ok. Well, here is my favorite version:

Fee-fi-fo-fum
I smell the blood of an Englishman.
Be he alive or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread. -- "Jack the Giant Killer."

Now, one sure to be your fav:

"Child Roland to the dark tower came,
His word was still, Fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man." -- Shakespeare, "King Lear."

And, for those finding neither to their liking:

"O, tis a precious apothegmatical Pedant, who will find matter enough to
dilate a whole day of the first invention of Fy, fa, fum, I smell the
blood of an English-man". -- Thomas Nashe, "Have with you to
Saffron-walden."

Ahhh, remember the good-ole-days when you could write this
gooble-de-gook for yourself? A burden which has now befell my
shoulders--I only thank God they are broad (my shoulders of course, not
the women!) :-(

However, Shakespeare does seem to befit some as more appropiate
"trolling lines" than myself ...

Regards,
JS

Baluns?
 

On Aug 31, 3:07*pm, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:26*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.
Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
same thing as a common mode choke. *A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.

That is too far narrow a definition *of a "common mode choke",
especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.

A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
serves a filtering purpose,
not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
resistor etc..


A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.

What exactly do you mean by that?

You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
settle for the best
you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.


And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
feedline?

For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
of phase with each other. Same with I. One conductor is +90 degrees
and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth. At any given
instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
each other is equal to the magnitude it would be on the inner
conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
with I.



I agree that the effect is
the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
there for a different reason.

Not in my station. My motivation for using common-mode chokes is
*specifically* to control any incoming and outgoing interference that
may be caused by common-mode currents on the feedline.

Of course. But it is not due to filtering unwanted RF, it is due to
the conversion of balancing your energy so
that the coax properly acts as a shielded unbalanced line with no
energy in the shield and all energy in the inner conductor
(assuming perfect conditions). Your dipole will try to balance when
fed as a dipole directly from a coax.. Without the balun, any
reflected energy will
partially come down the shield to ground causing interference. The
balun simply unbalances the reflected energy, if any, to that it all
returns through
the inner conductor eliminating RFI if the radio and the shield are
properly earthed.


When the common-mode component of the feedline is reduced, it will also
be accompanied by an improvement in "balance" on the antenna, because
the two things go together (or at least, they do for some definitions of
that word).

But think of your dipole as a balanced transmission line. That's what
it is, with a lot of loss (into radiation resistance).
You WANT common mode on THAT that lossy transmission line and you do
not want it filtered away.

But "balance" is never my primary goal because I don't find
the concept helpful, either when deciding what to do next or when
evaluating the results.

I say "balanced" is your primary goal though you do not realize it.
You want to balance the energy propagation in your dipole "lossy
transmission line", when feeding it with an unbalanced coax. The balun
should accomplish that. Anything reflected is not good but at least it
is reflected "unbalanced" inside the grounded shield causing less EMI.

Baluns?
 

Baluns?
 

Dan wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:07*pm, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:26*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.
Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
same thing as a common mode choke. *A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.

That is too far narrow a definition *of a "common mode choke",
especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.

A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
serves a filtering purpose,
not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
resistor etc..


Common-mode chokes, and filters in general, do NOT aim to "turn unwanted
RF into heat"! That is a total misunderstanding of the whole concept.

An ideal common-mode choke would dissipate zero heat energy, and a
successful real-life choke will dissipate only a tiny fraction of the
available RF power.

When you insert a common-mode choke, you are inserting a large impedance
into the pathway of the common-mode current. The RF current
distribution throughout the entire antenna/feedline/ground system will
adjust to take account of this new impedance. As a result, most of the
common-mode current will be DIVERTED away from its former pathway, and
will flow instead in the antenna.

The details are complicated, but the concept that the choke DIVERTS
common-mode current away from the feedline is reasonably accurate. (By
contrast, the concept that it "turns unwanted RF current into heat" is
just plain wrong.)

If the choke is doing its job, the new value of common-mode current
(I_cm) flowing through the choke will be much less than the previous
value. The power dissipation in the choke will then be (I_cm)-squared x
R, where R is the resistive part of the choke's impedance at that
frequency. Note that I_cm is the small amount of common-mode current
that remains *after* having inserted the choke - not the value before!
The practical outcome is that a higher choke impedance will give *lower*
heat dissipation in the choke itself.

If a common-mode choke is getting hot, it isn't working. Unfortunately
there are many chokes that don't have a high enough impedance to handle
the full range of real-life situations. If a choke is not able to
suppress the common-mode current to a low enough value, then in some
situations it will get hot [1, 2]. But PLEASE don't imagine that is
how common-mode chokes are intended to work!

[1] http://www.w8ji.com/Baluns/balun_test.htm

[2] http://audiosystemsgroup.com/NCDXACoaxChokesPPT.pdf

Also see other pages and publications from the same authors.



A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.

What exactly do you mean by that?

You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
settle for the best
you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.


Sorry, but that is so confused I can't even begin to unpick it... except
by pointing to "you try to filter and dissipate unwanted back-RF". In so
many different ways, that is NOT what we're trying to do. Tug on that
loose strand, and the whole thing unravels.



And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
feedline?

For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
of phase with each other. Same with I.

Yes.

One conductor is +90 degrees
and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth.

No. Earth and 90 degrees don't come into this at all.

At any given
instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
each other is equal to the magnitude it would be on the inner
conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
with I.

Yes... but this definition of "balanced" also REQUIRES that the
common-mode current is zero. The two are locked together, so if
"balance" is your aim, the practical way to achieve it is to force the
common-mode current to a lower value.

We have some direct leverage on common-mode current, because it's a
real, measurable thing. But "balance" is only a concept, and there isn't
any *direct* leverage that we can apply to it.

So even though a "common-mode choke" and a "current balun" are two
different names for the same physical device, it does make a difference
which name you choose. Think "common-mode choke", and you can see the
levers that will make your antenna/feedline system perform the way you
want it to. Think "balun", and all you see is a label that covers those
levers up.


[...]
But think of your dipole as a balanced transmission line. That's what
it is, with a lot of loss (into radiation resistance).
You WANT common mode on THAT that lossy transmission line and you do
not want it filtered away.

Again, that is all so misconceived - at every turn, it clashes with
obvious, measurable physical reality; or else it contradicts itself.
I'm sorry, but you really do need to do a clean wipe and start again
with a good textbook.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Baluns?
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , John Smith
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.

Ian:

How about just disabling it, that was really enough of that anyway ...
;-)

Regards,
JS

No, I like the sentiment expressed. It's just the typo that is getting
to me!!!
--
Ian

So who makes up the slogans for the dems? Is it some kind of secret code?
Except for the fact that they hold peoples jobs and freedoms with an iron
fist and treat us all like school children, the candidates don't seem to do
anything of merit. Is it really all about blaming the other guy about what
your people are getting away with under their watch?

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
So who makes up the slogans for the dems? Is it some kind of secret code?
Except for the fact that they hold peoples jobs and freedoms with an iron
fist and treat us all like school children, the candidates don't seem to do
anything of merit. Is it really all about blaming the other guy about what
your people are getting away with under their watch?



Do you really think the "men" behind the curtain(s) pulling the puppets
strings are from different groups? i.e., Republicrats vs. Democans.

Fat chance; Me thinks the game is fixed. However, the "Laws of
Illusion(s)" dictates it is only that which is perceived which counts ...

Regards,
JS

Baluns?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:03:45 GMT, "JB" wrote:

I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login
is
set to dump all mail because of that.

I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.

Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
proportion.

I've heard the same arguments from kids who do drugs or refuse to wear seat
belts.
"It won't happen to me". I wouldn't want to lose my e-mail account or my
callsign to a spoof binge.

The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.

In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.

Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

What do you want? A new book of the Bible? How's this for testimony -
I must be a thorn in the side of the devil or he wouldn't have been trying
to take me and my dad out all our lives. The Lord has delivered me over and
over and even set a table before me in front of my enemies. My dad now
rests in Jesus. My rest is yet to come. Maybe if I was a poet or a
songwriter I could add to the Psalms but I leave that to others with that
gift.

Baluns?
 

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:11:47 GMT, "JB" wrote:

How's this for testimony

It isn't.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Baluns?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
So who makes up the slogans for the dems? Is it some kind of secret
code?
Except for the fact that they hold peoples jobs and freedoms with an
iron
fist and treat us all like school children, the candidates don't seem to
do
anything of merit. Is it really all about blaming the other guy about
what
your people are getting away with under their watch?



Do you really think the "men" behind the curtain(s) pulling the puppets
strings are from different groups? i.e., Republicrats vs. Democans.

Fat chance; Me thinks the game is fixed. However, the "Laws of
Illusion(s)" dictates it is only that which is perceived which counts ...

Regards,
JS

I have often considered the Good Cop Bad Cop theory of the Rep - Dem scam on
the people. The fact that they go to the same parties and get-togethers
means they share the same thoughts. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy
per-se. Think of it as one big party that everyone has to go to or be left
out, and even though everyone goes kissy-kissy, they are knifing in the
back. Distrust and polite smack is all around. Rather than conspiracy
though, there is convergence in thought on matters brought to light to be
wrestled over while more important matters are forgotten for the moment. We
the People get left behind.

Who do you vote for though... Obama has been hanging around the Rev. kill
whitey bunch for too long. No telling what disease he might have picked up.
There also seems to be some overcompensation, the way he so desperately
needs to validate himself with every group that he forgets who he is from
day to day. By the same token, what damage was done to McCain while being
thrashed in the POW camp. But he does seem to have tolerance and compassion
even though he sticks to his guns.

The fact we are narrowed to two parties smacks of some kind of collusion.
Especially in the light of certain travesties of the Dems that the Reps are
curiously silent on. Perhaps McCain is so attractive due to the fact he has
proven to be less of a party lapdog.

Baluns?
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:11:47 GMT, "JB" wrote:

How's this for testimony

It isn't.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh it's you again. You don't seem to do much other than poke the fire.

Baluns?
 

On Sep 1, 4:20*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:07*pm, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:26*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.
Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
same thing as a common mode choke. *A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.

That is too far narrow a definition *of a "common mode choke",
especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.

A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
serves a filtering purpose,
not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
resistor etc..

Common-mode chokes, and filters in general, do NOT aim to "turn unwanted
RF into heat"! That is a total misunderstanding of the whole concept.

A CM choke aims to present a high impedence to unintentional RF. Once
"choked" by the high impedance,
the enrgey must either reflect or be aborbed somewhere in the circuit
or the core as real power. What is it that you cannot
understand about the term "choke"?



An ideal common-mode choke would dissipate zero heat energy, and a
successful real-life choke will dissipate only a tiny fraction of the
available RF power.

CM choke is a filter, not an energy transfer device. Do you have any
formal education in electrical engineering?


When you insert a common-mode choke, you are inserting a large impedance
into the pathway of the common-mode current. *The RF current
distribution throughout the entire antenna/feedline/ground system will
adjust to take account of this new impedance. As a result, most of the
common-mode current will be DIVERTED away from its former pathway, and
will flow instead in the antenna.

Whew. You sort of describe a balun except that the balun is an
impedance matching device, in this discussion 1:1.
What new impedance does your 1:1 balun change you transmission line
and antenna feedpoint to ;-)


The details are complicated, but the concept that the choke DIVERTS
common-mode current away from the feedline is reasonably accurate. (By
contrast, the concept that it "turns unwanted RF current into heat" is
just plain wrong.)

Strawman. I didn't say that! RF current or voltage at the antenna is
not unwanted. You are the one who says you use a common choke choke at
your antenna feedpoint, not I.


If the choke is doing its job, the new value of common-mode current
(I_cm) flowing through the choke will be much less than the previous
value. The power dissipation in the choke will then be (I_cm)-squared x
R, where R is the resistive part of the choke's impedance at that
frequency. Note that I_cm is the small amount of common-mode current
that remains *after* having inserted the choke - not the value before!
The practical outcome is that a higher choke impedance will give *lower*
heat dissipation in the choke itself.

I cannot believe you are serious. You actually insert a choke at your
antenna input? I insert an efficient balun ;-)
Have you ever thought that there might be a reason for people
differentiating the use of a balun by use of the term "balun"?
There is a reason. On paper, it looks the same as a balun. In
operation, the CM choke presents a high impedance to
unwanted RF where the balun presents a MATCHED impedance to
intentional RF.


If a common-mode choke is getting hot, it isn't working.

It is working quite well if the filtered RF is dissipating in the
intentionally lossy core. (Such as powdered iorn).


Unfortunately
there are many chokes that don't have a high enough impedance to handle
the full range of real-life situations. If a choke is not able to
suppress the common-mode current to a low enough value, then in some
situations it will get hot *[1, 2]. *But PLEASE don't imagine that is
how common-mode chokes are intended to work!

[1] *http://www.w8ji.com/Baluns/balun_test.htm

[2]http://audiosystemsgroup.com/NCDXACoaxChokesPPT.pdf

Also see other pages and publications from the same authors.

A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Umm, we do not want to reduce power from the transceiver to the
antenna?


You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
settle for the best
you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.

Sorry, but that is so confused I can't even begin to unpick it...

It sounds like you have reached the plateau of your ability to
understand RF and transmission lines. THAT is the reason for
you confusion. Sorry.


except
by pointing to "you try to filter and dissipate unwanted back-RF". In so
many different ways, that is NOT *what we're trying to do. Tug on that
loose strand, and the whole thing unravels.

Continue the metaphor. Tug on that loose strand and what do you
discover, thus unraveling what?



And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
feedline?

For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
of phase with each other. Same with I.

Yes.

One conductor is +90 degrees
and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth.

No. Earth and 90 degrees don't come into this at all.

Yes it does! This reveals a large part of your confusion. The shield
on the coax is at earth. Earth is always involved. Do you know that
you could connect an earthing point exactly half way down the
"balanced" winding of the balun and have no effect on the operation of
the balun? There is no reason to do that of course but it illustrates
what the balun does. The center portion of the balanced winding is an
isolated 'earth' connection (that does need to be isolated but it is).
One side is -90, center is 0 (earth) and the other side is +90. On the
unbalanced side, there is no phase shift of course; you only have 0
(shield) and inner conductor voltage/current.

At any given
instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
each other is equal to the magnitude it would be *on the inner
conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
with I.

Yes... but this definition of "balanced" also REQUIRES that the
common-mode current is zero.

In a perfect situation, with a balanced feedline, the only kind of
current and voltage you have IS common mode!

I give up! You need some education in this area.

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh it's you again. You don't seem to do much other than poke the fire.



Give him a personality to "poke" (no gay pun intended! :-) ), things
will turn into a real riot then!

Regards,
JS

I was just wondering, "Could Jesus possibly have pointed ears like
spock?" 8-)

Baluns?
 

JB wrote:

...
I have often considered the Good Cop Bad Cop theory of the Rep - Dem scam on
the people. The fact that they go to the same parties and get-togethers
means they share the same thoughts. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy
per-se. Think of it as one big party that everyone has to go to or be left
out, and even though everyone goes kissy-kissy, they are knifing in the
back. Distrust and polite smack is all around. Rather than conspiracy
though, there is convergence in thought on matters brought to light to be
wrestled over while more important matters are forgotten for the moment. We
the People get left behind.

Who do you vote for though... Obama has been hanging around the Rev. kill
whitey bunch for too long. No telling what disease he might have picked up.
There also seems to be some overcompensation, the way he so desperately
needs to validate himself with every group that he forgets who he is from
day to day. By the same token, what damage was done to McCain while being
thrashed in the POW camp. But he does seem to have tolerance and compassion
even though he sticks to his guns.

The fact we are narrowed to two parties smacks of some kind of collusion.
Especially in the light of certain travesties of the Dems that the Reps are
curiously silent on. Perhaps McCain is so attractive due to the fact he has
proven to be less of a party lapdog.


When Martin Luther King got them to promise, "OK, we are going to cut
you in on a piece of the pie ..." They suddenly kicked open the doors
on immigration from starving/impoverished 3rd world nations and added
the words, to the above, "NOW, grab yourself a piece of that pie!"

"That is 'IT', in a nutshell." However, there are whole books which
would could be written to fill in what the above doesn't mention.

Many have good reason to fear Obama. If he cuts in his friends,
relatives and people of his like color, ethnicity and background(s), we
are all in for "sharing a piece of our pie!" And, we all know it has to
happen, we were just hoping to put it off and let our children deal with
it (like deficit spending, where we have put off our bills for our
children to pay.)

Now, that is enough, I am done with this sub-off-topic-thread ... you
will excuse my leave ...

Regards,
JS
I was just wondering, "Could Jesus possibly have pointed ears like
spock?" 8-)