On 8/6/2015 11:33 AM, rickman wrote:

I asked that we not consider baluns and I did not ask that we consider
antenna patterns. Your comments seem to be designed to undermine the
discussion.

If you have any interest in the subject, start a thread on your own. Ask
your own questions, describe your own experiments. I would be interested
to look at them and I'm sure that others would as well.

On 8/7/2015 11:26 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 11:33 AM, rickman wrote:

I asked that we not consider baluns and I did not ask that we consider
antenna patterns. Your comments seem to be designed to undermine the
discussion.

John, I find your reply to be rather bizarre. In the message you
replied to, I didn't mention antenna patterns at all. I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

Rather than respond to the majority of my post which does meet your
criteria, you chose to ignore that, snip the entire post and complain.

In particular you ignored this part...

I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't want to get into a pedantic thing. Let's just iron out the misunderstanding and move forward.


Your own post is rather inflammatory and counter productive in a
conversation. If you want to discuss this topic, why not respond to the
parts of my post which are in line with your requests?


How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

,------o
|
|
GEN
|
|
+------o
|
,---,
\ /
'

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
On 8/7/2015 11:26 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 11:33 AM, rickman wrote:

I asked that we not consider baluns and I did not ask that we consider
antenna patterns. Your comments seem to be designed to undermine the
discussion.

John, I find your reply to be rather bizarre. In the message you
replied to, I didn't mention antenna patterns at all. I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

Rather than respond to the majority of my post which does meet your
criteria, you chose to ignore that, snip the entire post and complain.

In particular you ignored this part...

I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't want to get into a pedantic thing. Let's just iron out the misunderstanding and move forward.


Your own post is rather inflammatory and counter productive in a
conversation. If you want to discuss this topic, why not respond to the
parts of my post which are in line with your requests?


How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

What about it?

You are going off on tangents again.



--
Jim Pennino

On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/7/2015 11:26 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 11:33 AM, rickman wrote:

I asked that we not consider baluns and I did not ask that we consider
antenna patterns. Your comments seem to be designed to undermine the
discussion.

John, I find your reply to be rather bizarre. In the message you
replied to, I didn't mention antenna patterns at all. I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

That is an outright lie. Did you or did you not write...

But you
have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an
element
of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the
pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and
what it
connects to, if anything.

And I wrote...

Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread.

Did you or did you not write (as shown above)...

I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

and in my OP did I or did I not write...

"I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna
balance and coax attachment."

And then later, did I or did I not write (shown above)...

I asked that we not consider baluns...

It does not matter WHY you brought up baluns again. If you cannot
discuss this without patterns and baluns as requested, then we cannot
have a meeting of the minds. If you require such crutches, then your
analytical abilities are weak.

On 8/7/2015 1:30 PM, John S wrote:
On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/7/2015 11:26 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 11:33 AM, rickman wrote:

I asked that we not consider baluns and I did not ask that we consider
antenna patterns. Your comments seem to be designed to undermine the
discussion.

John, I find your reply to be rather bizarre. In the message you
replied to, I didn't mention antenna patterns at all. I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

That is an outright lie. Did you or did you not write...

But you
have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an
element
of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the
pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and
what it
connects to, if anything.

That was written several messages back, not in the post you were
replying to.


And I wrote...

Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread.

Which you didn't do... you didn't "disregard" it. You decided to pick a
fight over it.


Did you or did you not write (as shown above)...

I only mentioned
the balun as an example of how current can be equal on both terminals,
but the device can be either balanced or unbalanced.

and in my OP did I or did I not write...

"I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna
balance and coax attachment."

I don't go back to the OP every time I reply to a thread. I'm sorry if
I have offended you.


And then later, did I or did I not write (shown above)...

I asked that we not consider baluns...

It does not matter WHY you brought up baluns again. If you cannot
discuss this without patterns and baluns as requested, then we cannot
have a meeting of the minds. If you require such crutches, then your
analytical abilities are weak.

In other words, you have no interest in discussing the topic, you would
rather pick a fight?

You snipped my request that you discuss the issue rather than focusing
on the negative. Ok, if you don't want to discuss the issues this
conversation is over, no? If you want to discuss the issues, I suggest
you return to my last post and address the issues, not the BS.

--

Rick

On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:

How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

,------o
|
|
GEN
|
|
+------o
|
,---,
\ /
'


No. Because there is one current path on the top and two current paths
on the bottom.

On 8/8/2015 8:24 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:

How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

,------o
|
|
GEN
|
|
+------o
|
,---,
\ /
'


No. Because there is one current path on the top and two current paths
on the bottom.

So how does that rule apply to your circuit?

--

Rick

On 8/8/2015 5:38 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/8/2015 8:24 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:

How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

,------o
|
|
GEN
|
|
+------o
|
,---,
\ /
'


No. Because there is one current path on the top and two current paths
on the bottom.

So how does that rule apply to your circuit?

In the same way that it would apply to any circuit. Is this your attempt
at a trick question?

So, I have answered your questions. Don't you think it is time you
answered my question? You will have to read back in the thread to
refresh your memory although I remember that you posted that you don't
do that. I have come to believe that your attitude and responses here
are simply that you don't have an interest in discussing the technical
aspects but want to create further confrontation. My conclusion
therefore is that you are a troll. If you are not, you will reply with
something worth discussing concerning the original post.

On 8/9/2015 12:13 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/8/2015 5:38 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/8/2015 8:24 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/7/2015 12:02 PM, rickman wrote:

How about this circuit. Is it balanced?

,------o
|
|
GEN
|
|
+------o
|
,---,
\ /
'


No. Because there is one current path on the top and two current paths
on the bottom.

So how does that rule apply to your circuit?

In the same way that it would apply to any circuit. Is this your attempt
at a trick question?

Where do you get this stuff??? How is this question a "trick" question.
This circuit has one arm of the generator grounded. You said it is
not balanced because the one arm has two possible current paths while
the other has but one. Your circuit has two possible current paths
while the other has but one. So it seems a simple conclusion that by
your definition of balanced circuit both of these circuits are unbalanced.

Where is the trick and why would you think this is a "trick"?


So, I have answered your questions. Don't you think it is time you
answered my question? You will have to read back in the thread to
refresh your memory although I remember that you posted that you don't
do that. I have come to believe that your attitude and responses here
are simply that you don't have an interest in discussing the technical
aspects but want to create further confrontation. My conclusion
therefore is that you are a troll. If you are not, you will reply with
something worth discussing concerning the original post.

I'm not going to try to divine your question by reading back in a long
thread. If you want to have a conversation, fine, what question are you
talking about? If not, I'm done with this. You seem to want to make
this as difficult as possible and I'm a bit tired of it.

You asked if the original circuit is balanced and I have tried to figure
out what your definition of balanced is. Now you seem to think I am
trying to trick you into saying something you don't want to say.
Whatever.

--

Rick

On 8/5/2015 8:47 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote:
The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not
discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment.

Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF
generator in the middle.

Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have
one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still
balanced?

Well, the starting point is this:

----------0-----------

Where the 0 is the generator.

So, if any current flows, it will be the same magnitude in each wire
like this:

I - I -
-----------0----------

Then we attach a wire like so:

----------0.----------
|
|
|
|
|


Now, if we have a current in the left-hand side, it MUST be balanced by
the SUM of the currents in the right hand side. Like this:

I(t)- I(1)-
----------0+---------
|
| I(2)
| |
| V
|

So, I(t) = I(1) + I(2)

The point here is that there will be a current (I(2)) in a coax shield
attached to the antenna whether there is a ground connection or not.
There will be a current (I(2)) in a coax shield attached to the antenna
whether the antenna is matched or not. I do not see any other alternatives.