|
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun.
He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote:
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
Wayne wrote:
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) This is not the first time this question has arisen. A quick check on Google with pronunciation dictionaries, wickipedia and such inevitably comes up bal un -- I've never heard the pronunciation using the y. I've used baluns, but never bayluns! :-) Irv VE6BP |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , rickman
writes On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) "Bayl-uhn" suggests that the user doesn't know (or care about) the obvious origin and meaning of the word. The same goes for the occasional use of "bal-uhm" and "bayl-uhm. -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"Irv Finkleman" wrote in message ... Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) This is not the first time this question has arisen. A quick check on Google with pronunciation dictionaries, wickipedia and such inevitably comes up bal un -- I've never heard the pronunciation using the y. I've used baluns, but never bayluns! :-) I have heard it both ways. Mostly bal un. It is suspose to be pronounced that way as it is just the contraction of balanced unbalanced. I don't know where the Y comes from and I am in the south. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun.
He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". I suspect it may be a regional-accent sort of thing. Some people probably pronounce it based on its word origin ("balanced/unbalanced", hence "bal uhn") and some based on its appearance (like "basic" or "basted" or even "bailin' wire"). |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 4:05 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) I think Wayne added the 'y' to indicate that the 'a' is pronounced as in 'ace' rather than as in 'father'. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 5:17 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". I suspect it may be a regional-accent sort of thing. Some people probably pronounce it based on its word origin ("balanced/unbalanced", hence "bal uhn") and some based on its appearance (like "basic" or "basted" or even "bailin' wire"). When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote:
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) I found this at ARRL: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Tech...df/7902015.pdf |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 5:55 PM, FBMBoomer wrote:
On 7/27/2015 5:17 PM, Dave Platt wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". I suspect it may be a regional-accent sort of thing. Some people probably pronounce it based on its word origin ("balanced/unbalanced", hence "bal uhn") and some based on its appearance (like "basic" or "basted" or even "bailin' wire"). When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If it is pronounced "transformer", the insertion gain goes up 3.05 degrees. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 6:03 PM, John S wrote:
On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) I found this at ARRL: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Tech...df/7902015.pdf Sorry, I should have added: See the section "Baluns - Are They Necessary?" |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"John S" wrote in message ... On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) I found this at ARRL: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Tech...df/7902015.pdf Thanks, I'm going to forward this to my buddy. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"John S" wrote in message ... On 7/27/2015 4:05 PM, rickman wrote: On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) I think Wayne added the 'y' to indicate that the 'a' is pronounced as in 'ace' rather than as in 'father'. Yes. I was trying to go for the sound of "bail un". I have heard it both ways, but usually the "bail un" pronunciation comes from someone not at all familiar with baluns. Now, one wag questioned the pronunciation of modem (modulator/demodulator), because it should be the first syllable of both words similar to balun. That would make the pronunciation "mah dem" That would be with the American pronunciation of modulator. I'm not sure but the English pronunciation might have a long o sound in modulator. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 6:44 PM, John S wrote:
On 7/27/2015 4:05 PM, rickman wrote: On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) I think Wayne added the 'y' to indicate that the 'a' is pronounced as in 'ace' rather than as in 'father'. I don't want to be nitpicky, but the a in 'father' is pronounced a bit differently, like the a in 'all', while the first syllable in 'balance' is pronounced as the a in bath. The a in 'father' uses the letter a as the pronunciation symbol (or internationally the ä). The a in 'balance' is represented by the symbol æ (looks like an a squished with an e). I expect the people who are pronouncing it like 'bailiff' are thinking the proximity of the vowel 'u' is making the 'a' long. But the rule is really just a guideline and only applies when the word ends with an e, if I remember. So while this is certainly a subject for debate, everything I have found (other than a single web page - By Gary Altunian "Stereos Expert") all say it is balun or bælən. -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 7:08 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/27/2015 6:44 PM, John S wrote: On 7/27/2015 4:05 PM, rickman wrote: On 7/27/2015 4:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Where does the "y" come in? The word is a contraction of balanced and unbalanced. So I figure it should be pronounced "bal uhn" just like the beginning of the two words it stands for. Maybe the 'y' is added further south than Virginia. ;) I think Wayne added the 'y' to indicate that the 'a' is pronounced as in 'ace' rather than as in 'father'. I don't want to be nitpicky, but the a in 'father' is pronounced a bit differently, like the a in 'all', while the first syllable in 'balance' is pronounced as the a in bath. The a in 'father' uses the letter a as the pronunciation symbol (or internationally the ä). The a in 'balance' is represented by the symbol æ (looks like an a squished with an e). nitpicky is not a problem here. I will never object to some education. I expect the people who are pronouncing it like 'bailiff' are thinking the proximity of the vowel 'u' is making the 'a' long. But the rule is really just a guideline and only applies when the word ends with an e, if I remember. So while this is certainly a subject for debate, everything I have found (other than a single web page - By Gary Altunian "Stereos Expert") all say it is balun or bælən. I won't debate. I would rather go with the flow. In print, there is no problem anyway. If I go to a club meeting and hear others pronounce it, I will follow their lead. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:55:58 -0500, FBMBoomer
wrote: When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If you really want inflated losses, I suggest you pronounce it "balloon". https://www.google.com/#q=pronounce+balun Here's 4 ways to pronounce it. Add your own mutation: https://www.howtopronounce.com/balun/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 9:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:55:58 -0500, FBMBoomer wrote: When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If you really want inflated losses, I suggest you pronounce it "balloon". https://www.google.com/#q=pronounce+balun Here's 4 ways to pronounce it. Add your own mutation: https://www.howtopronounce.com/balun/ I saw those and listened. Two aren't even... what's the phonic equivalent of legible? A third sounds like the speaker is dying. They have thumbs up and down voting. -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 8:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:55:58 -0500, FBMBoomer wrote: When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If you really want inflated losses, I suggest you pronounce it "balloon". https://www.google.com/#q=pronounce+balun Here's 4 ways to pronounce it. Add your own mutation: https://www.howtopronounce.com/balun/ That was the topper Jeff. Good for you :-) |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , John S
writes On 7/27/2015 5:55 PM, FBMBoomer wrote: On 7/27/2015 5:17 PM, Dave Platt wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". I suspect it may be a regional-accent sort of thing. Some people probably pronounce it based on its word origin ("balanced/unbalanced", hence "bal uhn") and some based on its appearance (like "basic" or "basted" or even "bailin' wire"). When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If it is pronounced "transformer", the insertion gain goes up 3.05 degrees. F, C or K? -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , Jeff writes
When balun is mispronounced "bayl uhn" it increases the original insertion loss by 2.3 percent. "Bailin" causes an increase loss of 3.3 percent. These losses can be reduced substantially by removing the "baeleen". If it is pronounced "transformer", the insertion gain goes up 3.05 degrees. F, C or K? Perhaps we should debate how to pronounce 'pronunciation' (:-)) As she is spelt - which is certainty NOT the way most of the BBC's employees - including members of its Pronunciation Department - do!!!! -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , Jeff writes
On 27/07/2015 21:45, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Definitely 'Bal-Un' only. Never heard it said any other way. Unfortunately, Brits and Merkins are blessed with a not-so-common language which is neither reliably phonetic nor consistent in its idiosyncratic non-phoneticism. -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote:
Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/28/2015 11:57 AM, John S wrote:
On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. Sorry, folks. I meant to post this in another thread. :( |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"John S" wrote in message ... On 7/28/2015 11:57 AM, John S wrote: On 7/27/2015 3:45 PM, Wayne wrote: Just today I got a question from a new ham on the pronunciation of balun. He has been around the scientific community a lot (physicists, etc.) but not many RF types such as engineers or hams. He claims that he rarely has ever hear the pronunciation "bal uhn", and I've rarely heard "bayl uhn". Anybody want to weigh in on this, heh heh :) Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. Sorry, folks. I meant to post this in another thread. :( But to go ahead with an answer... Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:58:28 -0700, "Wayne"
wrote: But to go ahead with an answer... Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) You might want to try 4NEC2: http://www.qsl.net/4nec2/ Showing off... some of my results (not all original): http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/ Mo https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=4nec2+antenna+models -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:58:28 -0700, "Wayne" wrote: But to go ahead with an answer... Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) You might want to try 4NEC2: http://www.qsl.net/4nec2/ Showing off... some of my results (not all original): http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/ Mo https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=4nec2+antenna+models ***************** Looks good. I'll give it a try. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/28/2015 12:58 PM, Wayne wrote:
"John S" wrote in message ... Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) The hidden reason I asked the question is that I think you should model some antennas and look at the current on the shield of the transmission line. I have done this, and I don't see major problems if the system remains balanced just as lore suggests. This brings up a question of my own. By changing the slope of the coax shield, I can get increased current in it. The question is, at what point does it become a problem? As far as the antenna pattern is concerned, I would not worry. RF in the shack is another matter. In about 1958, my lips got some RF when they touched the D104 mike. Didn't hurt me, but I didn't like it. At the time I had no understanding of this phenomenon. Anyway, it would be nice if we could decide, measure, or simulate how much feed line current should be allowed. Maybe the answer is to simulate how much voltage appears in the shack. Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
"John S" wrote in message ... On 7/28/2015 12:58 PM, Wayne wrote: "John S" wrote in message ... Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) The hidden reason I asked the question is that I think you should model some antennas and look at the current on the shield of the transmission line. I have done this, and I don't see major problems if the system remains balanced just as lore suggests. This brings up a question of my own. By changing the slope of the coax shield, I can get increased current in it. The question is, at what point does it become a problem? As far as the antenna pattern is concerned, I would not worry. RF in the shack is another matter. In about 1958, my lips got some RF when they touched the D104 mike. Didn't hurt me, but I didn't like it. At the time I had no understanding of this phenomenon. Anyway, it would be nice if we could decide, measure, or simulate how much feed line current should be allowed. Maybe the answer is to simulate how much voltage appears in the shack. Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 11:56 AM, Wayne wrote:
"John S" wrote in message ... On 7/28/2015 12:58 PM, Wayne wrote: "John S" wrote in message ... Hey, Wayne - Do you have or want EZNEC? There is a free (limited) version. Just curious. Thanks. I have version 3.0, and it does the job for me. I got my first copy back in the days when W7EL frequented this group and knew by call sign who had legal copies :) The hidden reason I asked the question is that I think you should model some antennas and look at the current on the shield of the transmission line. I have done this, and I don't see major problems if the system remains balanced just as lore suggests. This brings up a question of my own. By changing the slope of the coax shield, I can get increased current in it. The question is, at what point does it become a problem? As far as the antenna pattern is concerned, I would not worry. RF in the shack is another matter. In about 1958, my lips got some RF when they touched the D104 mike. Didn't hurt me, but I didn't like it. At the time I had no understanding of this phenomenon. Anyway, it would be nice if we could decide, measure, or simulate how much feed line current should be allowed. Maybe the answer is to simulate how much voltage appears in the shack. Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. I disagree with him. Please see Roy Lewallen's (W7EL, author of EZNEC) site for some good reading. He is a superb writer of easy to understand technical tidbits. He has some balun stuff among other stuff. http://eznec.com/misc/ |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 1:42 PM, John S wrote:
On 7/29/2015 11:56 AM, Wayne wrote: Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. I disagree with him. Please see Roy Lewallen's (W7EL, author of EZNEC) site for some good reading. He is a superb writer of easy to understand technical tidbits. He has some balun stuff among other stuff. http://eznec.com/misc/ Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote:
On 7/29/2015 1:42 PM, John S wrote: On 7/29/2015 11:56 AM, Wayne wrote: Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. I disagree with him. Please see Roy Lewallen's (W7EL, author of EZNEC) site for some good reading. He is a superb writer of easy to understand technical tidbits. He has some balun stuff among other stuff. http://eznec.com/misc/ Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 2:32 PM, John S wrote:
On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: On 7/29/2015 1:42 PM, John S wrote: On 7/29/2015 11:56 AM, Wayne wrote: Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. I disagree with him. Please see Roy Lewallen's (W7EL, author of EZNEC) site for some good reading. He is a superb writer of easy to understand technical tidbits. He has some balun stuff among other stuff. http://eznec.com/misc/ Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). I don't follow what skin effect has to do with the issue. The current flowing on the outside of the shield is the only current flowing in the shield. What's your point? -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , John S
writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: On 7/29/2015 1:42 PM, John S wrote: On 7/29/2015 11:56 AM, Wayne wrote: Lots of questions. A large area for investigation. The reason for my balun question (other than to generate meaningful technical banter on the newsgroup) is that some years ago in the age of sliderules, a widely known and respected antenna guru told me that a balun was unnecessary at resonance ( j=0 ). I lost touch with him and don't know if his views changed over the years. I disagree with him. Please see Roy Lewallen's (W7EL, author of EZNEC) site for some good reading. He is a superb writer of easy to understand technical tidbits. He has some balun stuff among other stuff. http://eznec.com/misc/ Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. If the shack ground connections are not very short - or imperfect - the supposedly grounded equipment is hot RF-wise. Furthermore, on transmission the shield outer current radiates, and if it is in close proximity to any susceptible domestic equipment, it can cause interference problems to it. And because things will be reciprocal on receive, the shield won't act too well as a shield to nasty RF interference being emitted my nearby domestic equipment. -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 3:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? Is this reflected RF at the impedance mismatch at the feedpoint? If so, the situation being discussed has no impedance mismatch, so no returning RF. Is the returning RF from the signal being radiated from the antenna inducing current in the shield? If so, doesn't the inner conductor also pick up the radiated signal? -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
In message , rickman
writes On 7/29/2015 3:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , John S writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? Is this reflected RF at the impedance mismatch at the feedpoint? If so, the situation being discussed has no impedance mismatch, so no returning RF. Is the returning RF from the signal being radiated from the antenna inducing current in the shield? If so, doesn't the inner conductor also pick up the radiated signal? The RF (which is, of course, an AC signal) doesn't just flow out of the top end of the coax and into the two halves of the antenna. The fact that the antenna has a standing wave on it means that some RF is bouncing off the far ends of the antenna, and back to (and into) the top end of the coax. There is no reason why the returning RF current on the shield leg of the antenna should want to flow back on the inside of the shield - in fact, a combination of the Faraday shield effect and the skin effect encourages it to take the easy route on outside of the shield. -- Ian |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
rickman wrote:
On 7/29/2015 3:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , John S writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? Is this reflected RF at the impedance mismatch at the feedpoint? If so, the situation being discussed has no impedance mismatch, so no returning RF. Is the returning RF from the signal being radiated from the antenna inducing current in the shield? If so, doesn't the inner conductor also pick up the radiated signal? The energy IN the coax is not carried by either conductor, but in the field between the conductors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxia...al_propagation Once you connect to coax to something, the outside of the shield looks like another current path with some impedance of it's own. Likely easiest to visualize on a vertical antenna as being another radial. See http://www.eznec.com/miscpage.htm and in particular the article "Baluns: What They Do and How They Do It". -- Jim Pennino |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On 7/29/2015 4:05 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman writes On 7/29/2015 3:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , John S writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? Is this reflected RF at the impedance mismatch at the feedpoint? If so, the situation being discussed has no impedance mismatch, so no returning RF. Is the returning RF from the signal being radiated from the antenna inducing current in the shield? If so, doesn't the inner conductor also pick up the radiated signal? The RF (which is, of course, an AC signal) doesn't just flow out of the top end of the coax and into the two halves of the antenna. The fact that the antenna has a standing wave on it means that some RF is bouncing off the far ends of the antenna, and back to (and into) the top end of the coax. So you are saying that with a perfect match to an antenna with a real only impedance (the stated condition for this discussion) there will still be a reflected wave on the feed line? There is no reason why the returning RF current on the shield leg of the antenna should want to flow back on the inside of the shield - in fact, a combination of the Faraday shield effect and the skin effect encourages it to take the easy route on outside of the shield. I'm not at all clear on the location of current flow on the shield, but what about the current flow on the inner conductor? If the antenna reflects a balanced signal back into the cable isn't there also a current in the inner conductor which will create an opposing magnetic field? Maybe that is not the issue as some are talking about the problems created by the voltage drop to ground on the shield. -- Rick |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
rickman wrote:
On 7/29/2015 4:38 PM, wrote: rickman wrote: On 7/29/2015 3:14 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , John S writes On 7/29/2015 1:16 PM, rickman wrote: Perhaps someone can explain the issue of current in the coax shield. Current gives rise to a magnetic field. But the current in the inner conductor is opposite and would create a magnetic field that would cancel the field of the outer conductor, no? What am I missing? Skin effect. The currents on the inside of the shield and on the outside of the shield see different things. They each have no idea what the other is doing. As for magnetic field, I must step aside. I can only report what the gurus say (nothing that I've found). Even though the coax shield is grounded at the shack end, both halves of the antenna get fed push-pull (in anti-phase) with the RF signal flowing on the outer skin of the inner conductor and the inner skin of the shield. However, at the antenna end, the returning RF on the shield side of the antenna doesn't know that it should stay on the inside of the shield. Because of the skin effect, it happily makes for the outside, whence it flows back to shack, and through the shack grounding connections. I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? Is this reflected RF at the impedance mismatch at the feedpoint? If so, the situation being discussed has no impedance mismatch, so no returning RF. Is the returning RF from the signal being radiated from the antenna inducing current in the shield? If so, doesn't the inner conductor also pick up the radiated signal? The energy IN the coax is not carried by either conductor, but in the field between the conductors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxia...al_propagation Once you connect to coax to something, the outside of the shield looks like another current path with some impedance of it's own. Likely easiest to visualize on a vertical antenna as being another radial. See http://www.eznec.com/miscpage.htm and in particular the article "Baluns: What They Do and How They Do It". I'm not at all clear on what you are trying to say. I have no idea why you are shifting the conversation to the details of the power transmission. Exactly what was written that you are replying to? What I am talking about is the current on the outside of a coax, not "shifting the conversation". You asked "What exactly is the source..." and I am providing the answer to that question. One thing I left out is that the match and reflections have nothing to do with the current on the outside of the coax. Try reading the links I provided if you want more details to the answer to your question of where does the current on the outside of the coax come from. -- Jim Pennino |
"Bal uhn" or "bayl uhn"?
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:19:29 -0400, rickman wrote:
I am having trouble forming an image of this. What exactly is the source of the "returning RF"? This might help: http://www.antennex.com/w4rnl/col0606/amod100.html The first few paragraphs are the applicable parts. Quoting a few tibits: "Fig. 1 presents one traditional way to portray the situation at the dipole feedpoint. Its general purpose is to show why the insertion of a balun is important as a precautionary measure in dipole construction." "However, the current from the braid has 2 paths: the right leg of the dipole in the figure and the outer side of the coaxial cable braid." The rest of the article deals with modeling issues and problems. When modeling a balun, I use three conductors for the coax. The usual inner and outer conductors, which are assumed to handle only differential current and therefore do not radiate, and a mysterious 3rd conductor on the outside, which carries all the common mode current that does the radiating. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com