Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Well, as an update to my Carolina Windom project, I find that the CW OCF
dipole cut to typical dimensions works well WITHOUT a balun but does not
work at all WITH a balun.

Specifically, a DX Engineering BAL200-H10-AT 4:1 balun. I bought it to
go with a folded dipole from DX Engineering. It worked fine with the
folded dipole and a length 300 Ohm ladder line as feed.

When I use the above balun with the CW cut to typical dimensions and
using a 300 ohm ladderline feed, even RECEIVE is muted...no change from
coax only.

I am fairly sure that the balun is a voltage type and not a choke type.
I also installed a series of ferrite beads from Palomar to choke the
coax near the bottom of the ladderline.

I guess I'm not all that surprised that the CW works without a
balun...the ATU tunes it and sig reports aren't bad. I guess I have
some radiation from coax and a mismatch from coax to ladderline but I
think I can live with that. It's getting cold and I needed to finish
this thing before winter really sets in.

I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a balun.
The internals of the balun look fine.

Any thoughts?

(here goes)

John
AB8O

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote:
Well, as an update to my Carolina Windom project, I find that the CW OCF
dipole cut to typical dimensions works well WITHOUT a balun but does not
work at all WITH a balun.

Specifically, a DX Engineering BAL200-H10-AT 4:1 balun. I bought it to
go with a folded dipole from DX Engineering. It worked fine with the
folded dipole and a length 300 Ohm ladder line as feed.

When I use the above balun with the CW cut to typical dimensions and
using a 300 ohm ladderline feed, even RECEIVE is muted...no change from
coax only.

I am fairly sure that the balun is a voltage type and not a choke type.
I also installed a series of ferrite beads from Palomar to choke the
coax near the bottom of the ladderline.

I guess I'm not all that surprised that the CW works without a
balun...the ATU tunes it and sig reports aren't bad. I guess I have
some radiation from coax and a mismatch from coax to ladderline but I
think I can live with that. It's getting cold and I needed to finish
this thing before winter really sets in.

I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a balun.
The internals of the balun look fine.

Any thoughts?

(here goes)

John
AB8O


Hmmm ...

Cecil is the first one to even get me to try an OCF antenna! I thought
I like my life "balanced"; now, I find, I can go though live
"unbalanced" and "off center." grin

However, the 300 ohm line you are using IS balanced. So, I am assuming
you have a 50 ohm UNBALNCED output from your rig OR PA, and this is
where you would insert the 4:1 (6:1 would be better), and that you have
inserted it there, right? Properly, directly at the rigs output, to
engage the 300 ohm line, right? (i.e., between the rigs 50 ohm
UNBALANCED out and the 300 ohm balanced line?)

If you have it there, and did not notice an improvement, or at least no
change, we have another problem--apparently ...

Warm regards,
JS

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote:
Well, as an update to my Carolina Windom project, I find that the CW OCF
dipole cut to typical dimensions works well WITHOUT a balun but does not
work at all WITH a balun.

Specifically, a DX Engineering BAL200-H10-AT 4:1 balun. I bought it to
go with a folded dipole from DX Engineering. It worked fine with the
folded dipole and a length 300 Ohm ladder line as feed.

When I use the above balun with the CW cut to typical dimensions and
using a 300 ohm ladderline feed, even RECEIVE is muted...no change from
coax only.

I am fairly sure that the balun is a voltage type and not a choke type.
I also installed a series of ferrite beads from Palomar to choke the
coax near the bottom of the ladderline.

I guess I'm not all that surprised that the CW works without a
balun...the ATU tunes it and sig reports aren't bad. I guess I have
some radiation from coax and a mismatch from coax to ladderline but I
think I can live with that. It's getting cold and I needed to finish
this thing before winter really sets in.

I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a balun.
The internals of the balun look fine.

Any thoughts?

(here goes)

John
AB8O


Hmmm ...

Cecil is the first one to even get me to try an OCF antenna! I thought
I like my life "balanced"; now, I find, I can go though life
"unbalanced" and "off center." grin

However, the 300 ohm line you are using IS balanced. So, I am assuming
you have a 50 ohm UNBALNCED output from your rig OR PA, and this is
where you would insert the 4:1 (6:1 would be better), and that you have
inserted it there, right? Properly, directly at the rigs output, to
engage the 300 ohm line, right? (i.e., between the rigs 50 ohm
UNBALANCED out and the 300 ohm balanced line?)

If you have it there, and did not notice an improvement, or at least no
change, we have another problem--apparently ...

Warm regards,
JS

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote in
:

Well, as an update to my Carolina Windom project, I find that the CW
OCF dipole cut to typical dimensions works well WITHOUT a balun but
does not work at all WITH a balun.

Specifically, a DX Engineering BAL200-H10-AT 4:1 balun. I bought it
to go with a folded dipole from DX Engineering. It worked fine with
the folded dipole and a length 300 Ohm ladder line as feed.

When I use the above balun with the CW cut to typical dimensions and
using a 300 ohm ladderline feed, even RECEIVE is muted...no change
from coax only.

I am fairly sure that the balun is a voltage type and not a choke
type. I also installed a series of ferrite beads from Palomar to choke
the coax near the bottom of the ladderline.

I guess I'm not all that surprised that the CW works without a
balun...the ATU tunes it and sig reports aren't bad. I guess I have
some radiation from coax and a mismatch from coax to ladderline but I
think I can live with that. It's getting cold and I needed to finish
this thing before winter really sets in.

I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a
balun. The internals of the balun look fine.

Any thoughts?


1. Doesn't the manufacturer of Carolina Windom's claim one of the
benefits is feed line radiation? (If you can't suppress it, call it out
as a competetive advantage?)

2. DX Engineering are a bit light on info on the balun, like most
manufacturers I guess... but the title bar of the web page says it is a
current balun. Pity the technical details tab doesn't make it clear.

3. If the design is intended to excite feed line common mode current,
then the device at the top of the feed line is probably a 4:1 Ruthroff
balun which has very low common mode impedance (differently to an
effective current balun).

4. What has 300 ohm line got to do with the Carolina Windom?

Owen

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote:
I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a balun.
The internals of the balun look fine. Any thoughts?

1. Baluns are designed for a narrow range of *resistive*
impedances, e.g. 50/200 ohms (plus or minus). Over what
range of impedances are you asking your balun to function
properly? Baluns don't handle massive reactance very well.

2. A misapplication example: 300 ohm twinlead with a 10:1
SWR can take the impedance seen by the balun down to 30 ohms.
Then the 4:1 balun tries to take 30 ohms down to 7.5 ohms.
That's a lossy situation for a tuner.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote:
Well, as an update to my Carolina Windom project, I find that the CW OCF
dipole cut to typical dimensions works well WITHOUT a balun but does not
work at all WITH a balun.

Specifically, a DX Engineering BAL200-H10-AT 4:1 balun. I bought it to
go with a folded dipole from DX Engineering. It worked fine with the
folded dipole and a length 300 Ohm ladder line as feed.

When I use the above balun with the CW cut to typical dimensions and
using a 300 ohm ladderline feed, even RECEIVE is muted...no change from
coax only.

I am fairly sure that the balun is a voltage type and not a choke type.
I also installed a series of ferrite beads from Palomar to choke the
coax near the bottom of the ladderline.

I guess I'm not all that surprised that the CW works without a
balun...the ATU tunes it and sig reports aren't bad. I guess I have
some radiation from coax and a mismatch from coax to ladderline but I
think I can live with that. It's getting cold and I needed to finish
this thing before winter really sets in.

I am clueless as to why the CW failed to work AT ALL when USING a balun.
The internals of the balun look fine.


Hey John,

Trying to make sure that we are on the same page here.

You are using a OCF dipole with a 4:1 Balun, and using ladder line to go
from the balun to the shack?

Most of the OCF's I am familiar with run coax from the balun to the shack.

What are the respective leg lengths here? Height? Something is a little
askew here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Owen Duffy wrote:

4. What has 300 ohm line got to do with the Carolina Windom?


True enough. I tried an OCF as a way to be able to run coax and have
multi band no-tuning and get rid of the window line.

Tried it, it was interresting, and now I'm back to using window line.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Owen Duffy wrote:

4. What has 300 ohm line got to do with the Carolina Windom?


True enough. I tried an OCF as a way to be able to run coax and have multi
band no-tuning and get rid of the window line.

Tried it, it was interresting, and now I'm back to using window line.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

------------

Yep, it only takes a few key ups to punch a hole in the dielectric in the
coax.

Ed, NM2K

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

I've attached the original article that describes the CW in question.
Three versions of the Carolina Windom are presented: Original single
wire feed, OCF with twinlead and balun, and OCF with 10' length of coax
to a choke balun (1:1). Mine is the middle one. Please see Fig 3A. The
balun is at the bottom of the twin lead (I think I mistakenly referred
to it as ladder line). I added large ferrite beads just below the balun
on the coax as discussed here in the group earlier.

With the DX Engineering balun in place as in the figure, no xmit and no
rcv ... i.e., no diff than open-ended (shorted?) coax.

When I bypassed the balun and connected the balanced twin lead directly
to the coax...NOW I have good receive and pretty good sig reports.

Yes a 6:1 balun should also work according to what I've read.

The feedline radiation is intended for the 300 ohm twinlead only, not
the coax below the balun.

I am pretty sure the balun is the Ruthroff type that Owen mentions
(i.e., not a CHOKE balun)

I guess I'll conclude that the balun has failed. However, on inspection
the balun looks perfect...it is only 2 yrs old, has5 KW continuous power
rating and I run 40 W. Also, it worked perfectly well when used
originally with the DX Engineering folded dipole, also using a 300 ohm
feedline. (this is why I chose the CW...I had the stuff for it)

I appreciate the discussion

John
AB8O

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote in :

I've attached the original article that describes the CW in question.

As you now know, that didn't work.

You need to put the article on a web site somewhere, or give the URL of an
existing copy.

Owen

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
jawod wrote in :


I've attached the original article that describes the CW in question.


As you now know, that didn't work.

You need to put the article on a web site somewhere, or give the URL of an
existing copy.

Owen
Thank you SO much Owen

here ya go

www.w5fc.org/files/QRP%20Expressions.pdf

John
AB8O

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, jawod wrote:

here ya go

www.w5fc.org/files/QRP%20Expressions.pdf

John
AB8O


This was the article that convinced me to build a NCW. (The 3rd option)
I scaled mine up to the 132 ft version so I could have 80m.

When I finally have a QTH to support its size, I will string it up
permanently. Till then, it is my field-day antenna of choice.

My 706IIg with AT180 autotuner have no trouble getting a clean match on 6m
thru 80m.

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote in :

....
Thank you SO much Owen

here ya go

www.w5fc.org/files/QRP%20Expressions.pdf

There are a host of issues with the content of the article. I don't
intend to red pen the article, but the issues sound a warning about
credibility.

There is no doubt it describes a Ruthroff 4:1 balun in its "new Carolina
Windom" configuration. Such a balun will have a very low common mode
impedance.

Factors of your implementation that are / may be different include:

The DXE balun you used appears to be described as a current balun on the
DXE web site. If it is, it may work differently. (I have already
commented on the lack of clarity of the product information, perhaps they
might clarify it if you email them with a support question - "what did I
buy?".)

DXE also warn us that 'tuner' style baluns such as the one you used are
more likely to be reactive an higher frequencies... presumably a
consequence of thicker wire insulation which increases the Zo of the TL
sections which results in less ideal impedance transformation with
increasing frequency.

Owen

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

DXE also warn us that 'tuner' style baluns such as the one you used are
more likely to be reactive an higher frequencies... presumably a
consequence of thicker wire insulation which increases the Zo of the TL
sections which results in less ideal impedance transformation with
increasing frequency.


Thanks for the input. The strange thing is that the system failed at
ALL freq's. The original use of the balun was with a folded dipole and
a feedline of 300 ohm twinlead cut to an odd multiple of the lowest freq
desired...which I did and it worked reasonably well. I cannot
understand how this application (the CW OCF) is significantly different
from the original one, at least in terms of using a 4:1 balun.

Allow me to put this to rest. I can live with it as it is, theoretical
considerations notwithstanding. I don't want to go over to the dark
side, but, hey, it works. Maybe I have a new "Magic" Antenna.

John
AB8O

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote in :
... Maybe I have a new "Magic" Antenna.

Instead of the "perfect antenna" as claimed in the article!

Owen

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

jawod wrote:
Three versions of the Carolina Windom are presented:
Original single wire feed,

Actually, not a Carolina Windom - simply a traditional
Windom, the grandfather of all Windoms - named after
Major General Loren G. Windom, W8GZ, (Windy) (QST,
Sep 1929, pp 19-22, 84).

www.geocities.com/w8jyz/8GZ.pdf

OCF with twinlead and balun,

Don't know if it was ever a commercially available
antenna called a "Carolina Windom" but this is just a
traditional "Off-Center-Fed Dipole" labeled as such in
my 1957 ARRL Handbook.

http://www.w8ji.com/windom_off_center_fed.htm

and OCF with 10' length of coax

This is what most people think about when someone says
"Carolina Windom" and the reason that some people were
confused.

http://www.hamuniverse.com/k4iwlnewwindom.html

I guess I'll conclude that the balun has failed.

At least hang a 200 ohm non-inductive resistor on the
output and measure the input impedance. I don't know
how you can assume the balun has failed if you don't
know what impedances the balun was having to deal with.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

On 2008-10-29, jawod wrote:
I've attached the original article that describes the CW in question.
Three versions of the Carolina Windom are presented: Original single
wire feed, OCF with twinlead and balun, and OCF with 10' length of coax
to a choke balun (1:1). Mine is the middle one. Please see Fig 3A. The
balun is at the bottom of the twin lead (I think I mistakenly referred
to it as ladder line). I added large ferrite beads just below the balun
on the coax as discussed here in the group earlier.

If I'm reading this correctly, you put the balun at the bottom of the twin
lead and the ferrite bead balun just under it.

Many 'Carolina Windoms' use the balun at the feed point, the ladder line or
twin lead under that, and the ferrite bead balun at the bottom of the ladder
line, to which is attached the coax.

Placing the balun (4:1 or whatever) under the twin lead would really do
strange things to the impedance and probably cause the problems you mentioned.

73 ...Edwin, KD5ZLB
--
__________________________________________________ __________
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to
return."-da Vinci http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/d/edwinljohnson

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

When trying to understand off center fed antennas, it's important to
realize a few key facts:

1. A properly working "voltage" or "Ruthroff" balun will force common
mode current to exist on the feedline in its attempt to cause equal
voltages on the unequal length sides relative to the feedline shield.
2. Even if an effective "current" or "Guanella" balun is used, feedline
current will still be induced by the uneven coupling between the two
antenna sides.
3. A transforming balun is very unlikely to effect the expected
transformation ratio, and is likely to add a significant amount of
series and/or shunt reactance except at those spot frequencies where the
match is close to perfect.

This isn't to say that off center fed antennas can't sometimes be made
to "work", i.e., provide a reasonable impedance match on some bands. But
when they do, it's not for the reasons you think from an analysis
assuming a perfect transformer and balun. It usually involves a complex
relationship among the particular imperfections of the
balun/transformer, feedline, and path to the Earth taken by the feedline
shield.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Edwin Johnson wrote:

...
Placing the balun (4:1 or whatever) under the twin lead would really do
strange things to the impedance and probably cause the problems you mentioned.

73 ...Edwin, KD5ZLB

Actually, I would expect placing a 4:1 balun under the 300 ohm balanced
line and before the 50 ohm unbalanced to provide a step-up(or step-down,
depending on the "direction" you view it from) of 50:200 or 4:1, as it
properly should. However, as someone presented in a paper a little
while back, some antennas "filled with errors" are able to function in
some manner and end up gaining their supporters ...

If you were to place a 1:1 balun at this same point, I would expect
little difference, but a difference (and, since you are mismatched at
this point, simply maintaining this mismatch with a component
introducing some loss and "redirecting" CM currents, not a good difference!)

It seems the "misunderstood/mystical/magical balun" lives on ...

Regards,
JS

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Roy Lewallen wrote in
treetonline:

When trying to understand off center fed antennas, it's important to
realize a few key facts:
....

Yes, I thing you are quite correct Roy.

The advertising hype that goes along with many of these commercially
popularised antennas gives the impression that deployment of multi-band
wire antennas for the lower HF bands is a very standardised thing, a no-
brainer. One buys the product, installs it in their own environment in
their own way, and it just "works" out of the box... whatever "works"
means.

The real world doesn't work that simply.

But to a buyer with faith in the promotional claims, they can buy a lot
of satisfaction for only $69.99 or whatever, and not have any untidy left
over materials to clutter up their home, or residual technical issues to
clutter up their mind.

Today, the growth opportunity in the US is selling attic antennas for low
HF bands to new hams. Not as popular here because restrictive covenants
on residential properties aren't as common.

But, hey, a simple wire antenna with published performance figures from
160m to 2m is attractive to *our* new six hour hams. Which antenna is
that? The W5GI Mystery Antenna, you know, the one "that performs
exceptionally well even though it confounds antenna modeling software".

Owen

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in
treetonline:

When trying to understand off center fed antennas, it's important to
realize a few key facts:
...

Yes, I thing you are quite correct Roy.

The advertising hype that goes along with many of these commercially
popularised antennas gives the impression that deployment of multi-band
wire antennas for the lower HF bands is a very standardised thing, a no-
brainer. One buys the product, installs it in their own environment in
their own way, and it just "works" out of the box... whatever "works"
means.

The real world doesn't work that simply.

But to a buyer with faith in the promotional claims, they can buy a lot
of satisfaction for only $69.99 or whatever, and not have any untidy left
over materials to clutter up their home, or residual technical issues to
clutter up their mind.

Today, the growth opportunity in the US is selling attic antennas for low
HF bands to new hams. Not as popular here because restrictive covenants
on residential properties aren't as common.

But, hey, a simple wire antenna with published performance figures from
160m to 2m is attractive to *our* new six hour hams. Which antenna is
that? The W5GI Mystery Antenna, you know, the one "that performs
exceptionally well even though it confounds antenna modeling software".

With all respect, Owen - a Ham can be just as ignorant if they tested
in the days when we had to mine and smelt our own copper for antennas.

There is plenty of ignorance to go around.

Before I go too much further, Hams should build their own wire
antennas. No excuses.

The interesting thing is that most of these novel antennas work to some
extent. I know a fellow in PA who was excited that he could work Maine
on 40 meters with a really bad antenna setup. He just didn't know what
to expect. (from where I'm at, 100 watts and a modest dipole should just
about ruin an S-meter between those two places)

That is how antenna BS starts. This guy would think that a poor antenna
is great because it performs better than his awful antenna.. 8^)

I won't come out and condemn things like OCF dipoles though, because
they are an interesting and cool novelty, and by gosh, I had fun
building, testing, and using mine. I learned a lot. Used one during
Field day, and ran and held frequencies at 100 watts on 80 meters.
Totally subjective of course, but low power stations usually don't do that.

One of the things I learned was that it is a real compromise. Higher
band performance wasn't so hot. But I'm a lot better off having built
it, and finding out it's capabilities and shortcomings, than just
believing that it is a bad antenna because I've been told it was so. I
know exactly what the antenna is like, and it only took me a few hours
of work, and a couple months of testing to find out.

I note this mainly because I am one of the unwashed new Hams - and we
aren't all as you describe.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Before I go too much further, Hams should build their own wire antennas.
No excuses.


For some hams, it is cheeper to just buy the wire antennas. By the time you
go to the store or order some wire, get the coax, get the insulators, get
one or two coax connectors, and maybe a balun , it may be cheeper to just
get all in one place for one price.

Side note: I was at a Ham supply store this past year, and I was looking
for some window line. They had a dipole antenna that included window
line for about half the price of the same amount of window line by
itself. That's probably the only good excuse IMO to buy a pre-made wire
antenna.

But I don't build my own antennas to save money. I'm trying to learn
something. Can I design and cut and install the antenna, and does it
perform as my design says it does?




I do build all my wire antennas because
I can get the wire for free and found some insulators for nothing. If
building trap dioples or other special wire antenas, the parts issue is even
greater.

Never built a trap dipole. I'm going to have to try it some day. I guess
the major advantage will be that it won't be so lobey as a longer wire
tuned for the higher frequency. But hey, the experimentation is the fun.

I'm not here to convince anyone that my antenna is bigger than theirs!
;^) he he.

I have an OCF antenna at 45 feet that I use for 80 and 40 meters. It works
much beter than an 80 meter dipole antenna at 25 feet usually. They are at
right angles to each other. I do have a beam for other bands so do not care
how it works on the higher bands. It does seem to have a larger bandwidth
than the regular dipole on 80 meters.

Yeah, I did okay on 80 and 40 too. That was my thing with the OCF. It
just seemed to be at best a 2 band antenna,
IIRC, the bandwidth was a little bigger on my OCF.

All antennas are a compromise of some sort, and the OCF is within the
acceptable range.

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Before I go too much further, Hams should build their own wire antennas.
No excuses.


For some hams, it is cheeper to just buy the wire antennas. By the time you
go to the store or order some wire, get the coax, get the insulators, get
one or two coax connectors, and maybe a balun , it may be cheeper to just
get all in one place for one price. I do build all my wire antennas because
I can get the wire for free and found some insulators for nothing. If
building trap dioples or other special wire antenas, the parts issue is even
greater.

I have an OCF antenna at 45 feet that I use for 80 and 40 meters. It works
much beter than an 80 meter dipole antenna at 25 feet usually. They are at
right angles to each other. I do have a beam for other bands so do not care
how it works on the higher bands. It does seem to have a larger bandwidth
than the regular dipole on 80 meters.

Carolina Windom without a balun: go figure
 

Michael Coslo wrote in
:


With all respect, Owen - a Ham can be just as ignorant if they
tested
in the days when we had to mine and smelt our own copper for antennas.

Mike, it is not about ignorance or how we were tested. We all start from
a base of no knowledge. The test doesn't make a ham, it is the enquiring
interest that makes us hams.

We are promoting ham radio to a different population, one that is more
excited by the box with lights and knobs, than an enquiring interest and
understanding of how it works.

Then add the economic factors that it is cheaper to buy an antenna
complete than to buy the ladder line it contains... and people have a
economic rationale for passing up the opportunity to do, to discover, to
learn.

The getting of knowledge often has monetary cost... the question
individuals need to ask is are they worth the investment in themselves.

The point about *our* new (VK) hams is that with just six hours
investment in the hobby, they aren't well equipped to see through
outragous claims of some antenna manufacturers. My perception is that
there are many more US sourced wire antennas of the magic kind appearing
on the bands here in VK since the introduction of our Foundation Licence.

Owen