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