Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
hi
i've build a 80 center fed dipole, cut for 80, to use multiband-- fed via coax. my goal is to use a balun. my recomendations so far have been for 1:1 /4:1 and 9:1, got nearly a equal tally of votes on each leaves me a bit confused however lets say i use a 9:1 for example on 80 my dipole is resonant, therefore should be around 72ohms. lets presume it is now w/a 9:1 attached what happens? is this my trade off, ie i become very ineff at resonance while gaining some better match at the non resonant points? thanks m |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Too bad you couldn't use 300 ohm ladder line instead of coax. With the
addition of a antenna tuner and ladder line, you could eliminate the use of the balun altogether and mathcing would not be a problem on any band (well almost). John KE0GG ml wrote: hi i've build a 80 center fed dipole, cut for 80, to use multiband-- fed via coax. my goal is to use a balun. my recomendations so far have been for 1:1 /4:1 and 9:1, got nearly a equal tally of votes on each leaves me a bit confused however lets say i use a 9:1 for example on 80 my dipole is resonant, therefore should be around 72ohms. lets presume it is now w/a 9:1 attached what happens? is this my trade off, ie i become very ineff at resonance while gaining some better match at the non resonant points? thanks m |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:37:25 GMT, ml wrote:
hi i've build a 80 center fed dipole, cut for 80, to use multiband-- fed via coax. my goal is to use a balun. my recomendations so far have been for 1:1 /4:1 and 9:1, got nearly a equal tally of votes on each leaves me a bit confused however lets say i use a 9:1 for example on 80 my dipole is resonant, therefore should be around 72ohms. lets presume it is now w/a 9:1 attached what happens? is this my trade off, ie i become very ineff at resonance while gaining some better match at the non resonant points? Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. Another question, if you don't mind. Are you familiar with Choke Baluns or the W2DU Balun? Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of
the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. One would think that converting from a balanced antenna to unbalanced feedline would be a primary benefit offered by a balun. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:36:31 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote: Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. One would think that converting from a balanced antenna to unbalanced feedline would be a primary benefit offered by a balun. I'm perfectly aware of most of the reasons for using a balun. I'm trying to uncover the motivation of the complainant. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Very clever design, Robert! Your system should provide gain at the
higher operationg frquencies as a bonus. John KE0GG W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:36:31 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote: Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. One would think that converting from a balanced antenna to unbalanced feedline would be a primary benefit offered by a balun. I'm perfectly aware of most of the reasons for using a balun. I'm trying to uncover the motivation of the complainant. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry, I meant this reply to Cecil, W5DXP.
John John Steffes wrote: Very clever design, Robert! Your system should provide gain at the higher operationg frquencies as a bonus. John KE0GG W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:36:31 -0500, "Dave VanHorn" wrote: Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. One would think that converting from a balanced antenna to unbalanced feedline would be a primary benefit offered by a balun. I'm perfectly aware of most of the reasons for using a balun. I'm trying to uncover the motivation of the complainant. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() thank you for responding, well, chaning the impedance, you mentioned i thought would be important, as also i'd like to not have my 'shield' flowing w/rf i've been told it might help reduce 'interference' not sure however i fail to see how my ability or inablity to explain something equates to 'needing' a particular part or not, hence why i want to learn if i knew, all the ''angles' and aspects i wouldn't post i am still missing the info i seek In article , (Robert Lay) wrote: On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:37:25 GMT, ml wrote: hi i've build a 80 center fed dipole, cut for 80, to use multiband-- fed via coax. my goal is to use a balun. my recomendations so far have been for 1:1 /4:1 and 9:1, got nearly a equal tally of votes on each leaves me a bit confused however lets say i use a 9:1 for example on 80 my dipole is resonant, therefore should be around 72ohms. lets presume it is now w/a 9:1 attached what happens? is this my trade off, ie i become very ineff at resonance while gaining some better match at the non resonant points? Permit me to ask a simple question. Aside from the transformation of the impedance, what benefit were you planning to obtain from the Balun? If you can't answer that question, then perhaps you don't really need a Balun. Another question, if you don't mind. Are you familiar with Choke Baluns or the W2DU Balun? Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:01:36 GMT, ml wrote:
thank you for responding, well, chaning the impedance, you mentioned i thought would be important, as also i'd like to not have my 'shield' flowing w/rf That is exactly why I asked. Since you do not want RF on the outer shield, then instead of a transformer type balun, you may find that the choke balun or W2DU balun will better serve your needs. It is designed specifically to reduce the flow of RF on the outer shield. i've been told it might help reduce 'interference' not sure Correct! however i fail to see how my ability or inablity to explain something equates to 'needing' a particular part or not, hence why i want to learn if i knew, all the ''angles' and aspects i wouldn't post i am still missing the info i seek You were apparently disturbed by my question. However, it has been my experience that it is very important to find out what is the real problem, because it is only when you know the real problem you can hope to find the best answer. For example, someone asks for a recommendation for a good hammer, and he gets hundreds of recommendations for good hammers - all different and all good hammers for something, but none are the best answer for his needs. Once it is discovered that what he really needs is a good way to kill chickens - then we tell him to wring their necks. Do you see my point? It is truly a shame, but most people do not know how to seek help, properly. They must forget their idea of a solution and define their real problem. It is not a natural talent, but is certainly a valuable one, which earns them better answers, quicker. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
ml wrote:
i've build a 80 center fed dipole, cut for 80, to use multiband-- fed via coax. It is not a good idea to use a coax-fed 80m CFD on the other bands because of losses due to SWR in the coax. Your balun problems are the least of your worries. If you feed the 80m CFD with ladder-line, you could use it on the other bands without suffering massive SWR losses. For that configuration, all one needs is a 1:1 choke at the tuner. Take a look at http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/notuner.htm for some ideas on your antenna. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Parallel balun problem with wire loop | Antenna | |||
Adding a 2:1 balun to a multi-band dipole | Antenna | |||
Horizontal loop - balun or no balun ? | Antenna | |||
Balun Grounding Question ? | Antenna | |||
Bricks effect in dipole resonance? Help! | Antenna |