I accidentally found your discussion. Having nothing else better to do I
thought I would make the following remarks -

The 9:1 balun on a 'long wire', on the average, has no effect on what you
call the antenna 'effectiveness'. On receive, you may find the signal
strength marginally better at some random frequencies and marginally worse
at other random frequencies.

4:1 baluns have a similar negligible effect at different sets of random
frequencies with a very slightly smaller overall loss over the whole wide
band from MF to HF.

You may just as well omit a balun altogether. Omission of a balun means zero
balun loss. But loss in a balun is negligible anyway. It just means there is
nothing to be gained by fitting one.

Baluns can be useful in particular frequency bands. But if you are
interested in particular bands then a very simple tuned antenna, a coil or
capacitor, or changing antenna length, is much to be preferred.

Baluns in a receiving application are beneficial only to the bank-balances
of balun manufacturers and salesmen. In other words, don't waste you
hard-earned money!

(PS: The supposed 600-ohm Zo of a random length of wire has very little to
do with it. Concentrate on the exact particular antenna length. Please send
me the money you save.)

And forgive me for the interruption.
----
Reg , G4FGQ

The supposed 600-ohm Zo of a random length of wire has very little to
do with it.
===============================

Depending on length, height and wire diameter, Zo can vary between 450 and
650 ohms or thereabouts. What's yours?

Then what balun ratio would the guru's and old wives recommend? And to
confuse even further, receivers can have an input impedance anywhere between
50 and 1000 ohms.

Some tuned receivers have an indeterminate input impedance. Who needs a
balun?
----
Reg , G4FGQ

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:28:54 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

The supposed 600-ohm Zo of a random length of wire has very little to
do with it.
===============================

Depending on length, height and wire diameter, Zo can vary between 450 and
650 ohms or thereabouts. What's yours?

Then what balun ratio would the guru's and old wives recommend? And to
confuse even further, receivers can have an input impedance anywhere between
50 and 1000 ohms.

Some tuned receivers have an indeterminate input impedance. Who needs a
balun?
----
Reg , G4FGQ

Well Reg need and want are two different things. Perhaps my inverted
L didn't 'need' a balun, however after installing an ICE-182A
DC-Isolated matching transformer (balun if you will) I had a
noticeable reduction in noise. The difference is real and as a result
I have a better S/N ratio that makes listening less fatiguing. Now
here's the $64,000 question ........"Was the difference due to
impedance matching, the DC isolation or did a previously un-noticed
loose ground get fixed when I put the ICE unit in-line?"

Howard

"Howard" wrote
"Reg Edwards" wrote:

The supposed 600-ohm Zo of a random length of wire has very little to
do with it.
===============================

Depending on length, height and wire diameter, Zo can vary between 450
and
650 ohms or thereabouts. What's yours?

Then what balun ratio would the guru's and old wives recommend? And to
confuse even further, receivers can have an input impedance anywhere
between
50 and 1000 ohms.

Some tuned receivers have an indeterminate input impedance. Who needs a
balun?
----
Reg , G4FGQ

Well Reg need and want are two different things. Perhaps my inverted
L didn't 'need' a balun, however after installing an ICE-182A
DC-Isolated matching transformer (balun if you will) I had a
noticeable reduction in noise. The difference is real and as a result
I have a better S/N ratio that makes listening less fatiguing. Now
here's the $64,000 question ........"Was the difference due to
impedance matching, the DC isolation or did a previously un-noticed
loose ground get fixed when I put the ICE unit in-line?"

Howard

You know Howard, it's mostly amateur radio operators who have read too much
and worked too little that make statements like "a balun for receiving is
just for the balun makers benefit". These hams have little idea how
hobbyists who have special interest in DX, especially utility, and have
tried and tested numerous receiver antenna systems over the years. As I said
earlier I too use ICE equipment on one receive-only antenna. I could care
less what a stuffed-shirt thinks that does for my receive ability, as I used
it first as a hobbyist and then professionally. It certainly does improves
my digital and analog signal reception. I have that Ice box impedance set to
favor the lower bands on the wire and it at times outperforms a matched
dipole in reception. The compromise is that I lose usefulness of that wire
much above 6 mhz,which is ok as it does it required job superfluously. Now
the 4:1 current-type balun use on another wire-set antenna provides quiet
listening as well as excellent transmit abilities from 2182 Khz through
11000 Khz. And of course I use a 1:1 current-balun on a long dipole. Would I
"have" to? Of course not. Does it improve the antennas abilities in
listening as well as transmit? You bet it does. Do what works for you and
God help anyone who argues with that.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA

Well Jack, I use one too. Yes, it makes a difference. No, you will not
likely get anyone on a ham group to agree with you. It seems that the SWLs
are not the only ones to do this. Drake builds them into their recievers.
Why would a manufacturer include a non functional part?

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:4XPnd.8198$D26.7997@lakeread03...

You know Howard, it's mostly amateur radio operators who have read too
much
and worked too little that make statements like "a balun for receiving is
just for the balun makers benefit". These hams have little idea how
hobbyists who have special interest in DX, especially utility, and have
tried and tested numerous receiver antenna systems over the years. As I
said
earlier I too use ICE equipment on one receive-only antenna. I could care
less what a stuffed-shirt thinks that does for my receive ability, as I
used
it first as a hobbyist and then professionally. It certainly does improves
my digital and analog signal reception. I have that Ice box impedance set
to
favor the lower bands on the wire and it at times outperforms a matched
dipole in reception. The compromise is that I lose usefulness of that wire
much above 6 mhz,which is ok as it does it required job superfluously. Now
the 4:1 current-type balun use on another wire-set antenna provides quiet
listening as well as excellent transmit abilities from 2182 Khz through
11000 Khz. And of course I use a 1:1 current-balun on a long dipole. Would
I
"have" to? Of course not. Does it improve the antennas abilities in
listening as well as transmit? You bet it does. Do what works for you and
God help anyone who argues with that.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA

"CW" wrote

Well Jack, I use one too. Yes, it makes a difference. No, you will not
likely get anyone on a ham group to agree with you. It seems that the SWLs
are not the only ones to do this. Drake builds them into their recievers.
Why would a manufacturer include a non functional part?

Hi C, I wish there was easy consensus on the subject, with comprehendible
(to me) science behind why Baluns help. But in the end there is a general
consensus of the unwashed, we non-phd's of radio engineering who desire the
electrical isolation, control of feedline radiation when swr is a bit high,
and agreed upon improvement in signal to noise ratio, which some argue
theoretically cannot be accurate. For our distant worked stations or
mobiles, we seem to have reason enough. I stopped trying to explain to the
very friendly but rigid thinking folks at Radio Works (where my Baluns come
from) - that I enjoy the configuration of a random wire end-fed with
one-half the balun shorted to ground. "That cannot work" they tell me, yet
not only did a real Doctor of Electrical Engineering release this
noise-limiting design in an old issue of "Proceedings", but I have worked
aircraft 3,000 miles away with reports of "loud and clear" (exactly how they
sounded to me). It's one of the best antennas that doesn't work I ever had!

At least there have been friendly and interesting comments offered by all on
this topic, and something to learn as the gurus weigh in ;-)

Jack

-end -

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:4XPnd.8198$D26.7997@lakeread03...

You know Howard, it's mostly amateur radio operators who have read too
much
and worked too little that make statements like "a balun for receiving
is
just for the balun makers benefit". These hams have little idea how
hobbyists who have special interest in DX, especially utility, and have
tried and tested numerous receiver antenna systems over the years. As I
said
earlier I too use ICE equipment on one receive-only antenna. I could
care
less what a stuffed-shirt thinks that does for my receive ability, as I
used
it first as a hobbyist and then professionally. It certainly does
improves
my digital and analog signal reception. I have that Ice box impedance
set
to
favor the lower bands on the wire and it at times outperforms a matched
dipole in reception. The compromise is that I lose usefulness of that
wire
much above 6 mhz,which is ok as it does it required job superfluously.
Now
the 4:1 current-type balun use on another wire-set antenna provides
quiet
listening as well as excellent transmit abilities from 2182 Khz through
11000 Khz. And of course I use a 1:1 current-balun on a long dipole.
Would
I
"have" to? Of course not. Does it improve the antennas abilities in
listening as well as transmit? You bet it does. Do what works for you
and
God help anyone who argues with that.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA

Decoupling reduces the noise (rf current) traveling on the shield of the
coax, both to, and from your shack, which would otherwise get pretty much
direct coupled to your antenna.

Hello,
you should try the Magnetic Line Balun (MLB).
It is a ferrite (not powderiron) core with a 9to1 ratio.
Take three wires, twist them and turn them around a ferritering.
Set them in series.
The lower winding to the (t)rx het high to the wire.
It simply works fine on the receiver and with a trx with a tuner.

"Dave VanHorn" schreef in bericht
...

Decoupling reduces the noise (rf current) traveling on the shield of the
coax, both to, and from your shack, which would otherwise get pretty much
direct coupled to your antenna.

Dave,
this is exactly what I'm after. The RF in the shack it is causing all
kinds of problems. My TS50 is turning itself off, sprinklers turning
on etc.
Thanks
Fred
wb6iiq

On 21 Nov 2004 12:07:28 -0800, (Fred) wrote:
this is exactly what I'm after. The RF in the shack it is causing all
kinds of problems. My TS50 is turning itself off, sprinklers turning
on etc.

Hi Fred,

This is, really, a very common topic here. The praises heaped upon
expensive "BalUns" comes at the cost for simple ferrite plus rather
stiff prices added for advertising and the illusion of worth.

Simply take common garden variety ferrite cores and stack them up on a
12" length of RG-58. Very simple: one gozinta and one comesoutta.
This alone will quiet noisy receivers, remove RF potentials on the
case, cure rigs of instability; and make sprinklers and touch lamps
settle down.

Consult the archives for 1:1 BalUns, ferrite chokes, et. al. to
research the nuances of which ferrite you should use (or simply build
the conventional coiled coax choke).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC