On 9/9/2010 7:26 AM, lu6etj wrote:

...
Hello boys, good day for you

Is it Carolina Windom a balanced load to justify the name "balun"? We
could think in a device to transform Z and another device to block
feed line current. What do you think about it?

Miguel

Tell 'em one thing "balance" means is if you have a funky antenna
depending on feedline currents/radiation/etc. you don't start chucking a
bunch of stuff in the feedline without expecting patterns to change ...

Regards,
JS

On 9 sep, 15:48, Roy Lewallen wrote:
On 9/9/2010 7:26 AM, lu6etj wrote:



Hello boys, good day for you

Is it Carolina Windom a balanced load to justify the name "balun"? We
could think in a device to transform Z and another device to block
feed line current. What do you think about it?

Miguel

Before beginning a discussion about what constitutes a balanced load and
what doesn't, how about answering these questions?

1. What is "balance"?
2. What defines a "balanced" feedline?
3. What are the properties of a "balanced" load?
4. How can you tell when a line, load, or transmitter is "balanced"?
5. What's the big deal about being "balanced", anyway?

And finally,

How does a balun achieve "balance"?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello Roy

Why? that way we can end up having to define all words we use :). I
learnt a two terminal balanced circuit basically have the same
impedance respect to ground in its terminals, if Windom Carolina not
have it, well... we have missed the "bal" part of the equation :)

I recognize the other items are interesting to analize too but in
diferent sense that the proper use of the term "balun" towards I
pointed my little observation.

Years ago I have read your very good article "Baluns: What They Do
And How They Do lt" (until today I keep it safe in my computer for
reference) and I believe I understand where you point to with the
other good questions.

For John: Dear friend I could not translate well your post, may you
repeat in a little more Tarzan english for me?

Miguel

On 9/9/2010 6:50 PM, lu6etj wrote:

...
For John: Dear friend I could not translate well your post, may you
repeat in a little more Tarzan english for me?

Miguel

Miguel,

I can see why. I used some good old American satire-humor ... it is OK
my friend ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/9/2010 6:50 PM, lu6etj wrote:
On 9 sep, 15:48, Roy wrote:

Before beginning a discussion about what constitutes a balanced load and
what doesn't, how about answering these questions?

1. What is "balance"?
2. What defines a "balanced" feedline?
3. What are the properties of a "balanced" load?
4. How can you tell when a line, load, or transmitter is "balanced"?
5. What's the big deal about being "balanced", anyway?

And finally,

How does a balun achieve "balance"?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hello Roy

Why? that way we can end up having to define all words we use :). I
learnt a two terminal balanced circuit basically have the same
impedance respect to ground in its terminals, if Windom Carolina not
have it, well... we have missed the "bal" part of the equation :)

I recognize the other items are interesting to analize too but in
diferent sense that the proper use of the term "balun" towards I
pointed my little observation.

Years ago I have read your very good article "Baluns: What They Do
And How They Do lt" (until today I keep it safe in my computer for
reference) and I believe I understand where you point to with the
other good questions.

For John: Dear friend I could not translate well your post, may you
repeat in a little more Tarzan english for me?

Miguel

Suppose you connect a transmission line to a perfectly symmetrical,
horizontal antenna. The antenna and feedline would be a "balanced
circuit" by your definition, since the two conductors of the
transmission line have equal impedances to ground. But the transmission
line will radiate.

Now connect one conductor of the transmission line to the center of your
rig's coaxial connector, and the other conductor to the rig's chassis.
(This is Fig. 2 of the article you mention, which by the way is
available at http://eznec.com/Amateur/Articles/Baluns.pdf.) Is it still
a "balanced circuit"? Why or why not?

Or suppose you take two signal generators which are perfectly coherent
(i.e., phase locked to run at exactly the same frequency) and exactly in
phase with each other. Each has a 50 ohm output impedance and each
produces exactly 1 volt RMS of RF when open circuited. Connect one of
these to each of the terminals of the feedline instead of connecting the
feedline to your transmitter.

Now,
-- The impedances to ground looking toward the antenna from the feedline
are the same for the two feedline terminals.
-- The impedances looking back toward the generators from the feedline
are the the same for the two feedline terminals.
-- The two feedline conductors have equal voltages and currents.
-- The circuit is surely balanced by your definition.

Yet the feedline will radiate. Change the generator phasing any other
angle except 180 degrees, and the feedline will radiate. Only when the
two generators are exactly out of phase will the line cease radiating. I
call that condition "balance" for the reasons explained in the article,
but it's quite different from your definition.

If we're to use your definition of "balance", we have to conclude that
balanced transmission lines radiate some times and some times they
don't. If the system is already "balanced" when the generators are zero
or, say, 90 degrees out of phase, would a balun do anything if connected
between the generators and transmission line?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I know Wikipedia it is not authoritative but in "Balanced Line" says:

"In telecommunications and professional audio, a balanced line or
balanced signal pair is a transmission line consisting of two
conductors of the same type, each of which have equal impedances along
their lengths and equal impedances to ground and to other circuits.
[1]"

Hi Miguel,

This reference is much better than your first citation - it mentions
what the common (earth, ground, other circuits) is, which is necessary
for symmetry AND balance. Your first citation merely described a
loop. A loop is symmetrical within its own self, but that doesn't
make it balanced.

Searchiing the Web for definitions I found an interesting article in
that item with similar concepts
http://www.multimediamanufacturer.co...hitlock407.pdf

This link gives a good introduction to common mode which is central to
the problems of balance and symmetry.

Can you acces to an IEEE definition? I could not.

No point in that.

I believe original definition perhaps was related only to noise pick
up in lines, I understand your point and not oppose to it, it is a
good point, perhaps we have to say "an all (o totally) balanced
SYSTEM" when we want to refer to both (signal and impedance)
simmetries, to eliminate ambiguities.

No, that is not complete.

......
Although this is a more important issue, I insist in my original
point, is it "licit" to call "balun" a device connected to two
unbalanced circuits (line and antenna)?,

The word properly formed is BalUn - balance/unbalanced transformer.
Similarly you have a BalBal, and an UnUn so that other topologies are
properly termed.

Is it Carolina windom a
balanced antenna?

No.

Here most of hams tend to call balun any toroidal transformer, with TL
or traditional windings connected to any circuit! :)

The term was not coined through a democratic vote - they are wrong.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 sep, 15:17, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I know Wikipedia it is not authoritative but in "Balanced Line" says:

"In telecommunications and professional audio, a balanced line or
balanced signal pair is a transmission line consisting of two
conductors of the same type, each of which have equal impedances along
their lengths and equal impedances to ground and to other circuits.
[1]"

Hi Miguel,

This reference is much better than your first citation - it mentions
what the common (earth, ground, other circuits) is, which is necessary
for symmetry AND balance. *Your first citation merely described a
loop. *A loop is symmetrical within its own self, but that doesn't
make it balanced.

Searchiing the Web for definitions I found an interesting article in
that item with similar concepts
http://www.multimediamanufacturer.co...hitlock407.pdf

This link gives a good introduction to common mode which is central to
the problems of balance and symmetry.

Can you acces to an IEEE definition? I could not.

No point in that.

I believe original definition perhaps was related only to noise pick
up in lines, I understand your point and not oppose to it, it is a
good point, perhaps we have to say "an all (o totally) balanced
SYSTEM" when we want to refer to both (signal and impedance)
simmetries, to eliminate ambiguities.

No, that is not complete.

......
Although this is a more important issue, I insist in my original
point, is it "licit" to call "balun" a device connected to two
unbalanced circuits (line and antenna)?,

The word properly formed is BalUn - balance/unbalanced transformer.
Similarly you have a BalBal, and an UnUn so that other topologies are
properly termed.

Is it Carolina windom a
balanced antenna?

No.

Here most of hams tend to call balun any toroidal transformer, with TL
or traditional windings connected to any circuit! :)

The term was not coined through a democratic vote - they are wrong.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi friends

Well... I believe we mostly agree for our internal use, but, there are
a authoritative formal definition? because I do not found it, the only
ones I found were about impedance balance, not signal implied, however
it results strange to me because telegraph and phone lines crosstalks
depend on current balance in wires too, then I think old engineers
should be taken into account, my old RF and telephony books tends to
not use balance word but "symmetry".

I haven not problem with your/our concept, but have we power enough to
become "The Definitors"

Why "do not point in that" Richard you do not trust in IEEE guys? :)

Miguel

lu6etj wrote in
:

Hello boys, good day for you

Is it Carolina Windom a balanced load to justify the name "balun"? We
could think in a device to transform Z and another device to block
feed line current. What do you think about it?


Miguel,

Sometimes the language we use doesn't well describe the thing we are
thinking about, and this is a case.

We could well apply a meaning to balanced, that either the currents are
equal in magnitude but opposite in phase; or that the voltages wrt some
sensible accessible reference are equal in magnitude but opposite in
phase. One does not imply the other without constraining the load
characteristic.

When we speak of unbalanced, we commonly think of a configuration where
one side is 'grounded' and the other 'active'.

The problem is that many situations in antenna systems are not purely
either, they are not balanced by one or other of the meanings above, and
they are not unbalanced by the meaning above.

So, they need to be dealt with by the more general method of considering
that there are non-zero common mode and differential voltages and
currents.

It would be most unlikely that a Carolina Windown would be balanced, or
near to it, by any defintion. The antenna is born out of a quest to sell
the disadvantage of Windom feedline radiation as a positive feature.

The way I like to explain a balun is that it *facilitates* connection of
a not-balanced device to a balanced device. A practical balun does not,
of itself, eliminate (meaning make zero) common mode current or common
mode voltage... yet we commonly use absolute words to describe its
action.

To a certain extent, that is saying that they are not ideal or perfect
devices. Some of the rules we hams have made for baluns pretty much
assure mediocre performance. Like for example what I refer to as Rule
500, that the minimum choking impedance of a current balun is ten times
the differential characteristic impedance (commonly 50, hence Rule 500).

I know English is not your first language, but be wary of applying the
meaning of words absolutely.

Owen

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why "do not point in that" Richard you do not trust in IEEE guys? :)

Sounds like you are waiting for the right pope before you go to
confession.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 12 sep, 20:17, Owen Duffy wrote:
lu6etj wrote :

Hello boys, good day for you

Is it Carolina Windom a balanced load to justify the name "balun"? We
could think in a device to transform Z and another device to block
feed line current. What do you think about it?

Miguel,

Sometimes the language we use doesn't well describe the thing we are
thinking about, and this is a case.

We could well apply a meaning to balanced, that either the currents are
equal in magnitude but opposite in phase; or that the voltages wrt some
sensible accessible reference are equal in magnitude but opposite in
phase. One does not imply the other without constraining the load
characteristic.

When we speak of unbalanced, we commonly think of a configuration where
one side is 'grounded' and the other 'active'.

The problem is that many situations in antenna systems are not purely
either, they are not balanced by one or other of the meanings above, and
they are not unbalanced by the meaning above.

So, they need to be dealt with by the more general method of considering
that there are non-zero common mode and differential voltages and
currents.

It would be most unlikely that a Carolina Windown would be balanced, or
near to it, by any defintion. The antenna is born out of a quest to sell
the disadvantage of Windom feedline radiation as a positive feature.

The way I like to explain a balun is that it *facilitates* connection of
a not-balanced device to a balanced device. A practical balun does not,
of itself, eliminate (meaning make zero) common mode current or common
mode voltage... yet we commonly use absolute words to describe its
action.

To a certain extent, that is saying that they are not ideal or perfect
devices. Some of the rules we hams have made for baluns pretty much
assure mediocre performance. Like for example what I refer to as Rule
500, that the minimum choking impedance of a current balun is ten times
the differential characteristic impedance (commonly 50, hence Rule 500).

I know English is not your first language, but be wary of applying the
meaning of words absolutely.

Owen

Hello Owen, it is a pleasure to meet you again.

Oh, yes, of course here we use our words with freedom too. I confess I
call "baluncitos" (little baluns) the little toroid transformers,
specially binocular ones, but in this newsgroup a lot of good people
is very strict with wording and precision of terms :) then I thought
it was no exaggeration from me ask whether it is correct use the term
"balun" when both sides are "un", hi hi.

However certainly many times in our hobby words are a true trap for
novice (and not so novices), then, why not to call things with more
proper name?, if a balun do not "baluning", well... call them "seudo-
balun" or another similar pointer to true behaviour (as our known
"pseudo-Brewster angle"). There is not a languages translation issue
here Owen, you and we, in english and spanish, missuse the same words
and concepts, the "thing" it is "globalized".
I am far of being a purist of the tongues, but you know, we hams have
misleading words, a majority of you are true experts in RF and it is
difficult you can become confussed. Anyway, is not something to worry
so much either, the mine It was a casual comment, blame to Roy by take
us to the hard theory

Greetings

Miguel

On 12 sep, 22:19, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why "do not point in that" Richard you do not trust in IEEE guys? :)

Sounds like you are waiting for the right pope before you go to
confession.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi hi, Oh no, I am an atheist in all possibles senses of the word, but
I was curious about your comment, here we call it "cosas de
chismosas" (gossipy things?) :) - Miguel