Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Bob wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:38:35 +0100, Baron wrote: You could get a sample and measure it ! Well, I discarded that idea because I have no idea how. But then, on a hunch, I checked the manual that came with my MFJ-269, and sure enough, on page 34, it tells how to measure Velocity Factor, utilizing the distance to fault mode. It'll take a day or so to recharge the 269's batteries, and then I'll have at it. Bob k5qwg Unfortunately, it's not really simple to make measurements with symmetrical line. You'll be exciting a common mode current which will travel with a different velocity factor and affect the measurement. I suggest making an approximate measurement, then doing final adjustments of the MFJ kept as far as possible from conductive objects including yourself. You'll have to adjust it, let go, back off and read the meter, readjust, etc. And then it'll still be a bit off unless the length of the MFJ meter is quite short relative to a wavelength. You'll also have to keep the line well away from any conductors and avoid coiling it. Of course, the same problems will exist when you install the line in whatever system it'll be used for, unless you can get it very well balanced. It'll be a good exercise in learning some basic measurement techniques. Whether your results are adequately accurate depends on the application you'll be using the line for. I sometimes taught a class on TDR techniques, and I'd start by connecting a foot or so of two-conductor ribbon cable -- just soldered into and to the shell of an SMA connector -- to a high speed TDR. The trace would show the large reflection from the open end, of course, but a smaller reflection seemingly coming from a point about 1/4 of the way from the end. I explained that ribbon cable isn't controlled for impedance, so it obviously had a construction anomaly at that point, and pinched the line, running my fingers along until the reflection from the fingers was at the same point as the anomaly. Then I cut the line well toward the TDR unit, discarding the portion with the anomaly. When the audience saw the *new* reflection about 1/4 of the way from the end of the shorter wire, I had their attention. And thus began a discussion of differential and common mode waves. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
On Apr 4, 4:19*pm, Bob wrote:
I'm plugging the velocity factor figure into Cecil's program for optimum feedline lengths on a multiband dipole, IMAXMIN.EXE. Given the approximate nature of this kind of feed, a ballpark figure is probably okay. Yes, given all the variables, adjusting the final length, sometimes by a few feet (depending on wavelength) is almost always required to achieve system resonance. Remember that this approach is designed to eliminate the tuner and therefore eliminate tuner losses and it is designed to be used with a 1:1 current-choke-balun. Owen's comments are certainly valid for systems using antenna tuners and 4:1 baluns. In fact, if one chooses a ladder-line length halfway in between my "good" (current maximum) and "bad" (voltage maximum) lengths, one will obtain the odd 1/8 wavelengths points that are recommended for use with 4:1 baluns. Those points result in a ballpark impedance in the neighborhood of Z0 +/- jZ0/4, e.g. 400+j100 ohms. For those who understand a Smith Chart, a picture is worth a thousand words. http://www.w5dxp.com/smith.htm -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 06:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Cecil Moore
wrote: On Apr 4, 4:19*pm, Bob wrote: I'm plugging the velocity factor figure into Cecil's program for optimum feedline lengths on a multiband dipole, IMAXMIN.EXE. Given the approximate nature of this kind of feed, a ballpark figure is probably okay. Yes, given all the variables, adjusting the final length, sometimes by a few feet (depending on wavelength) is almost always required to achieve system resonance. Remember that this approach is designed to eliminate the tuner and therefore eliminate tuner losses and it is designed to be used with a 1:1 current-choke-balun. Owen's comments are certainly valid for systems using antenna tuners and 4:1 baluns. In fact, if one chooses a ladder-line length halfway in between my "good" (current maximum) and "bad" (voltage maximum) lengths, one will obtain the odd 1/8 wavelengths points that are recommended for use with 4:1 baluns. The more I look at it, the odd 1/8 wavelengths is probably the way I will go, connecting to my tuner's 4:1 balun. There will be a 130 foot flat-top, and the 450-ohm feedline length can be somewhere between 50 to 100 feet or so. Tnx for the input! Bob k5qwg Those points result in a ballpark impedance in the neighborhood of Z0 +/- jZ0/4, e.g. 400+j100 ohms. For those who understand a Smith Chart, a picture is worth a thousand words. http://www.w5dxp.com/smith.htm |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Roy Lewallen Inscribed thus:
Bob wrote: On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:38:35 +0100, Baron wrote: You could get a sample and measure it ! Well, I discarded that idea because I have no idea how. But then, on a hunch, I checked the manual that came with my MFJ-269, and sure enough, on page 34, it tells how to measure Velocity Factor, utilizing the distance to fault mode. It'll take a day or so to recharge the 269's batteries, and then I'll have at it. Bob k5qwg Unfortunately, it's not really simple to make measurements with symmetrical line. You'll be exciting a common mode current which will travel with a different velocity factor and affect the measurement. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Please could you elaborate on how and why a common mode current has a different VF on a balanced line. -- Best Regards: Baron. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Bob wrote in
: The more I look at it, the odd 1/8 wavelengths is probably the way I will go, connecting to my tuner's 4:1 balun. There will be a 130 foot flat-top, and the 450-ohm feedline length can be somewhere between 50 to 100 feet or so. Tnx for the input! I guess then that you didn't look at the article I quoted. Typical T match ATU's are lossier on capacitive loads than on inductive loads. The odd eighth wave rule of thumb is a popular one. But, alternate odd eight waves (on a resonant load) assures the highest ATU losses for the given SWR. These rules of thumb, and there are plenty that are conflicting, are usually given without explanation of why they work. We are a gullible lot! The same occurs with 4:1 voltage tuner baluns which anecdotal evidence suggests assist match of a wider range of loads. There is good reason to think that the mechanism behind this is that their own loss assists, and it is an inefficient work-around for another problem. Owen |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:33:47 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:
Bob wrote in : The more I look at it, the odd 1/8 wavelengths is probably the way I will go, connecting to my tuner's 4:1 balun. There will be a 130 foot flat-top, and the 450-ohm feedline length can be somewhere between 50 to 100 feet or so. Tnx for the input! I guess then that you didn't look at the article I quoted. Actually, I did look at the article. It mentioned the voltage maximum problems, the current maximum problems, and then said, "Is there a better option?" And I don't understand the few sentences that follow that query. In other words, I don't understand the solution -- i.e. "line lengths around 135 degrees longer than voltage maximum" :-) Bob k5qwg Typical T match ATU's are lossier on capacitive loads than on inductive loads. The odd eighth wave rule of thumb is a popular one. But, alternate odd eight waves (on a resonant load) assures the highest ATU losses for the given SWR. These rules of thumb, and there are plenty that are conflicting, are usually given without explanation of why they work. We are a gullible lot! The same occurs with 4:1 voltage tuner baluns which anecdotal evidence suggests assist match of a wider range of loads. There is good reason to think that the mechanism behind this is that their own loss assists, and it is an inefficient work-around for another problem. Owen |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Baron wrote:
Roy Lewallen Inscribed thus: Bob wrote: On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:38:35 +0100, Baron wrote: You could get a sample and measure it ! Well, I discarded that idea because I have no idea how. But then, on a hunch, I checked the manual that came with my MFJ-269, and sure enough, on page 34, it tells how to measure Velocity Factor, utilizing the distance to fault mode. It'll take a day or so to recharge the 269's batteries, and then I'll have at it. Bob k5qwg Unfortunately, it's not really simple to make measurements with symmetrical line. You'll be exciting a common mode current which will travel with a different velocity factor and affect the measurement. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Please could you elaborate on how and why a common mode current has a different VF on a balanced line. I'll take a shot.. The VF, to a first order, depends on the dielectric constant (permittivity) of the medium separating the conductors of the transmission line. (more correctly, the medium containing the electric and magnetic fields) For differential mode, it's the insulation between the wires (for window line, a value somewhere between that of the plastic and that of air)... For common mode, it's more the two wires acting as one conductor against the surroundings (e.g. earth) as the other conductor. The permittivity of that tends to be lower than that of the medium between the wires, so the velocity factor is "faster" for the common mode than the differential mode. It's not quite that simple, of course, because the field surrounds the conductors in all directions, not just conveniently between them. Another way to look at it is think of a balanced pair with distributed L and C suspended above a ground plane. The C (per unit length) between the pair is different than the C to ground, as is the L, for the common mode vs differential mode. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Bob wrote in
: .... It mentioned the voltage maximum problems, the current maximum problems, and then said, "Is there a better option?" And I don't understand the few sentences that follow that query. In other words, I don't understand the solution -- i.e. "line lengths around 135 degrees longer than voltage maximum" :-) The location of voltage maxima depends on the load on the line. If you were to plot the impedance at various lengths of line, it is highest (and purely resistive) when fed at a voltage maximum. As the line is lengthed, that impedance becomes capacitive, and lower, eventually becoming lowest (purely resistive again) at the current maximum (90° longer than the point of voltage maximum). Increasing the length further, impedance becomes inductive and increases eventually becoming highest at the next voltage maximum. At a point of about 135° longer than the voltage maximum, the impedance presented to the T match is in the region where it is most efficient. Alternatively, you could state this as 45° shorter than a voltage maximum. This is not your odd eighth wave (from a resonant load) rule, because that also encourages the capacitive region where losses are higher. Owen |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Baron wrote:
Please could you elaborate on how and why a common mode current has a different VF on a balanced line. Sure. First, a balanced line, whether it's twinlead or coax, doesn't have any common mode current, by definition -- the lack of common mode is what makes it balanced. We're talking about a physically symmetrical line. Whenever you have a two conductor line, you effectively have two transmission lines, differential mode and common mode. Although you actually have only one current on each conductor, by taking advantage of the principle of superposition you can mathematically separate the two currents into two *sets* or components of currents, analyze their effects separately to gain a better understanding, and simply add the results if you want to know the overall solution. The sum of the common mode and differential currents are the actual conductor currents, and the sum of the common mode and differential responses is the actual response. The differential or transmission line mode waves (voltage and current) are the components which are equal and opposite on the two conductors, so the field is strongest between the two conductors, fringing outward in the case of ladder line. The presence of the dielectric material in a major portion of the field slows down the waves, lowering the velocity factor. In the case of coax, the field is entirely within the dielectric so we can easily calculate the velocity factor if we know the dielectric constant of the material. In the case of ladder line, we don't know what fraction of the field is in the air and what's in the dielectric without a very advanced computer program, so we have to measure the velocity factor. The fraction and therefore velocity factor changes, by the way, with frequency, a phenomenon known as dispersion. The common or antenna mode waves are the components that are equal and in the same direction or polarity on the two conductors. The field is the same as it would be if the two conductors were connected together to make a single conductor. One conductor of the common mode transmission line is the two conductors of the ladder line, and the other is the Earth and/or surrounding conductors. These two common mode transmission line conductors are usually much farther apart than the ladder line conductors, so the common mode characteristic impedance is higher than the differential mode impedance. The velocity factor is usually higher, too, because the field is between the two common mode conductors -- the ladder line and the Earth --, and almost none of it is in the line dielectric. So its velocity factor is nearly 1. In my TDR demonstration, the common mode open end reflection occurred before the larger differential mode reflection because of the higher velocity factor, so it looked like a differential mode reflection from a point short of the end. (And I helped reinforce this mistake in order to get the audience's attention.) Any two conductor line supports both modes and behave the same, but coax is a little easier to understand because the differential and common mode currents are actually physically separate -- so no mathematical hocus-pocus is necessary. The differential currents and waves are entirely inside the cable, and the common mode currents and waves are outside. The velocity factor inside (differential mode) is determined by the dielectric material, and the velocity factor of the outside (common mode) is nearly 1. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
velocity factor, balanced line
Bob wrote in
: .... But then, on a hunch, I checked the manual that came with my MFJ-269, and sure enough, on page 34, it tells how to measure Velocity Factor, utilizing the distance to fault mode. It'll take a day or so to recharge the 269's batteries, and then I'll have at it. As Roy has explained, you need to stop common mode current from significantly altering your measurement. I have had sucess with placing a balun of a string of ferrite cores over the line. It is easy to observe the effectiveness using a VNA sweep, a bit tricker with the MFJ269. I have also found that stretching the line out straight causes the worst common mode problems, but if you coil it, you have to keep adjacent turns much further apart than the line's conductor separation. All this has to be done with the line suspended in the air, well clear of other dielectrics or conductors. (Hint: fishing line can be your friend!) Before these analysers, we measured the resonant frequency of a line section using a GDO. By very loosely coupling the GDO, and reading the GDO frequency from a calibrated receiver, good results could be obtained. Owen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Velocity Factor #2 | Antenna | |||
Group Velocity and Velocity Factor | Antenna | |||
Velocity factor | Antenna | |||
velocity factor??? | Antenna | |||
Velocity factor and impedance of ladder line | Antenna |