Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:58:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 07:24:34 -0500, John S wrote: On 6/27/2013 11:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On the short end of the scale, the 1/8th wave antenna at: http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Monopole/monopole_0_125/slides/monopole_0_125.html shows 254 ohms, which will work with a 2:1 turns ratio transformer. I don't think a transformer is a significant help. Without the transformer the SWR is about 158:1. With the transformer, the SWR is still up to about 61:1. That will probably kick in the SWR protection of the transmitter. John - KD5YI Nope. A 2:1 turns ratio tranformer will provide a 4:1 impedance ratio, not a 2:1 impedance ratio. The required transformer ratio would be: (254 / 50)^0.5 = sqrt(5) = 2.3 A 2:1 turns ratio xformer should be close enough. Another way is to take the 2:1 turns ratio transformer, which has a 4:1 impedance ratio, and divide the antenna impedance by the impedance ratio: 254 / 4 = 63.5 ohms. Not exactly 50 ohms, but close enough. Oops. My mistake. I couldn't recall if a 2:1 transformer referred to the turns ratio or the impedance ratio. I've seen it done both ways in other industries and transformer applications. I usually qualify the label with either turns or impedance ratio but forgot this time. However, skimming the available literature with Google, I find that the common usage for RF xformers is the impedance ratio. Therefore, your comments are correct and I should have specified a 4:1 transformer. Sorry(tm). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|