On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/5/2015 9:47 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. If we can't agree that this is a balanced
system, then we have nothing left to discuss.

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?

Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still
balanced.

Well, the starting point is this:

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

Where the 0 is the generator.

Then we attach a wire like so:

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

I don't understand how the antenna has not changed.

The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced.

I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as
either balanced or unbalanced.

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. There is also the issue of how much
energy is
transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it.


Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread.

If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has
changed.


In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna?

By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you
meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in
your OP.


So what is your question?


You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it.

"Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"?

You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be
described as either balanced or unbalanced."

A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That
series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one
leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series
resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg
than the other.

--

Rick

On 8/6/2015 9:13 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/5/2015 9:47 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. If we can't agree that this is a balanced
system, then we have nothing left to discuss.

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?

Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still
balanced.

Well, the starting point is this:

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

Where the 0 is the generator.

Then we attach a wire like so:

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

I don't understand how the antenna has not changed.

The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced.

I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as
either balanced or unbalanced.

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. There is also the issue of how much
energy is
transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it.


Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread.

If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has
changed.


In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna?

By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you
meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in
your OP.


How would YOU have stated it?


So what is your question?


You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it.

"Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"?


The system.


You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be
described as either balanced or unbalanced."

A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That
series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one
leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series
resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg
than the other.


But, there is a problem with your explanation. Inside the bubble (the
generator, noted as 0) you can have whatever impedance and whatever
network your heart desires. But for the two terminals exiting the
generator, the current will be the same on each terminal. It must, for
there are only two terminals. Whatever goes into one terminal, goes out
the other. In the ASCII figure model, I did not include any external
connections other than the wires.

So, what would you conclude from this?

On 8/6/2015 12:07 PM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 9:13 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/5/2015 9:47 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. If we can't agree that this is a balanced
system, then we have nothing left to discuss.

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?

Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still
balanced.

Well, the starting point is this:

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

Where the 0 is the generator.

Then we attach a wire like so:

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

I don't understand how the antenna has not changed.

The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced.

I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as
either balanced or unbalanced.

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. There is also the issue of how much
energy is
transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it.


Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread.

If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna
has
changed.


In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna?

By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you
meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in
your OP.


How would YOU have stated it?

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.

Do you intend for the wire to be part of the antenna? Is the wire
connected to ground or just hanging in space?


So what is your question?


You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it.

"Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"?


The system.

I don't know what the definition of a balanced system is. But I would
think it was pretty obvious that this is not balanced by nearly any
definition.


You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be
described as either balanced or unbalanced."

A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That
series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one
leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series
resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg
than the other.


But, there is a problem with your explanation. Inside the bubble (the
generator, noted as 0) you can have whatever impedance and whatever
network your heart desires. But for the two terminals exiting the
generator, the current will be the same on each terminal. It must, for
there are only two terminals. Whatever goes into one terminal, goes out
the other. In the ASCII figure model, I did not include any external
connections other than the wires.

So, what would you conclude from this?

Does equal current imply "balanced"? What about the voltage? But then
I am thinking relative to ground and your generator has no ground.
Still, the voltage at the two points do not have to be equal but
opposite. The point is the impact it will have on the antenna.

Look at what a balun does. On both sides of the balun, the current
going in and out each wire are equal, but obviously one side of the
balun is considered balanced and the other not. So equal current does
not imply "balanced".

--

Rick

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

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

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:

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