On Jan 18, 1:19*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:52:28 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE

wrote:
Googling TV BalUn was useless but searching fot 2M Balun proved more
useful. Per an article by K3MT they should be able to handle power in
the 5 to 10 watt range. More than enough for my purpose. I cracked
open a couple and foundd that tthe type that go *frm screw connectors
to male F connector have a larger transformer than the barrel type.
This was at least true for the couple that I sacrificed to the radio
gods.
K3MT"s data was on the barrrel or tubular type.

Jimmie

Hi Jimmie,

So, going further with this resource you found, was there any report
of how "well" it worked? *Merely surviving the application of 5 to 10
Watts isn't exactly proof of suitability for performance. *Even a SWR
report could mask the fact that a BalUn inappropriately applied is
operating as a padding resistor.

Going further yet, was it reported what style of BalUn it was?
Guanella? *Ruthroff? *Not all BalUns perform equally, and for
reception (the class of BalUn you are mining for transmission
application) it is arguable that it matters.

Lastly to your first statementGoogling TV BalUn was useless but searching fot 2M Balun proved more
useful.

The distinction was useful, but were you Googling the Web, or this
group?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K3MT had used them in 2M project so for the time being I will let it
go at that for now. Iam concerned about the cores saturating at that
power level but I doubt if there is a lot of info on it. When I get
off the road in a couple of weeks I will try hooking a couple of them
back to back to a dummy load, putting 10 watts in and seeing what
happens.

The web.

Jimmie

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:35:01 -0800 (PST), JIMMIE
wrote:

K3MT had used them in 2M project so for the time being I will let it
go at that for now. Iam concerned about the cores saturating at that
power level but I doubt if there is a lot of info on it. When I get
off the road in a couple of weeks I will try hooking a couple of them
back to back to a dummy load, putting 10 watts in and seeing what
happens.

The web.

Jimmie

Hi Jimmie,

Last things first, you should Google in "Groups," specifically this
group. This isn't a guarantee, but at least you will land in a thread
where discussion will reveal flaws where they exist.

For a core to saturate reveals a misunderstanding of how the BalUn
works (it goes to the same correspondents who speak of "turns ratio").

The most effective BalUn provides a high common mode reactance or
resistance to current. Hence current in that mode will be low. With
low current into a high resistance you have low power dissipation.
Core saturation never becomes a problem, and is a distinctly separate
issue - although solved through the same mechanism.

The most effective BalUn adds absolutely no differential mode
reactance or resistance. Again, where there is high current and no
resistance, there is no power dissipation and zero core saturation
(for the same reasons, but through different mechanisms).

Practical BalUns have some residual reactances and resistances that
they add to the transmission circuit. A Ruthroff BalUn design even
purposely introduces this to its own limitation (and no advantage over
other designs). The Ruthroff design invites core saturation. A
Guanella BalUn seeks to be the most effective design to its advantage
over the Ruthroff. The Guanella design suppresses core saturation.
There are limitations, of course.

You can still flame out a Guanella if the core reactance/resistance is
under designed, or your load is unbalanced and not suited to the
transformation ratio. This can be aided through choking the input to
the BalUn (which serves as a choke, too, for controlled loads).

The back-to-back test is useful. Take one BalUn between a finger and
thumb and count to 10. If you don't raise a welt, then they probably
are not too lossy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC