Chris:

I see. It is interesting reading anyway, thanks.

Warmest regards,
John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
link.net...
Tom is absolutely desparate to prove to the world that you cannot
under
any circumstances make a 4:1 current balun on a single core. So, he
tests
the single core Guanella balun with the usual test for a current balun
(short the outputs to gound one at a time and see if the input return
loss
changes) knowing fully well that the Guanella 4:1 current balun on a
single
core will only work with floating loads.

He is now equally desparate to prove that since nobody but he
understands transmission line transformers it is impossible for anyone
else
to understand or apply them. He also fails completely in
understanding that
the ferrite used in transmission line transformers is to improve the
low
frequency end by making the transmission line appear longer.

He's truly amazing, and he is mad as hell. He claims that it is
absolutely impossible to make a 4:1 current balun on a single core
with a
pair of 1:1 transformers (of any kind whatsoever), while the Guanelle
4:1
current balun has a pair of 1:1 transformers on a single core right in
front
of him. He also makes numerous other outrageous claims that defy all
manner
of electronics theory.

Here are some of his more memorable quotes along with the URLs for
the
QRP-L archives so you can see that he is not taken out of context,
contrary
to what he says:

"...it is impossible to build a 4:1 ratio current balun that
uses two 1:1 baluns on a single core."

which in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...12/020884.html

This is a good one:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the start
to finish of each transmission line. "

which in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...21/021331.html

and the following:

"It is physically impossible to build a transmission line
current balun other than 1:1 on a single core when the
windings have mutual coupling through the core."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021442.html

as well as:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the
start to finish of each transmission line. You can find it
in voltage maps of the balun."

which is the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...21/021331.html

and additionally:

"It is quite possible to build any reasonable ratio of
conventional transformer (as long as it is the square of
turns ratio) on a single core. It is quite impossible to
build a current balun of any ratio other than 1:1 using
multiple transmission line transformers on a single core
unless flux leakage between transmission lines is terrible."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021408.html

as well as:

"It impossible to build anything but a 1:1 ratio current
balun when multiple transmission line transformers are
placed on a single core. The voltage map shows that, as does
the basic electrical rule of current baluns that all
currents in all windings must sum to zero under all load
balance conditions."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021416.html

There is no room for ambiguity here. As you can see, he is making
unsubstantiated claims of "it is impossible" and "it is well
established"
that have no basis in fact. The problem here is really that I solved
the
problem of the single-core 4:1 current balun and he is mad as hell
because
in his world such a thing cannot possibly exist. So, he makes up
additional
new electronics theories to prove that everything you know is wrong.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Chris:

You do not agree with any of his analysis?

You do not think this is more of an isolation transformer than a
balun?
If not, how do you claim a "transmission line" quality/effect to it?

And, you did notice an insertion loss from this "device", didn't you?

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
Be sure to print it out as it changes almost daily. Very
strange,
indeed.

--
Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
A very interesting analysis of this design can be found at:
http://www.w8ji.com/balun_single_core_41_analysis.htm

... for those who have not yet seen it.

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
In recent days on the QRP-L mailing list, the following
remarks
were
made by Tom Rauch, W8JI regarding the design of 4:1 current
baluns:

"...it is impossible to build a 4:1 ratio current balun that
uses two 1:1 baluns on a single core."

and:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the start
to finish of each transmission line. "

I have devised and modeled a 4:1 current balun using two 1:1
baluns
on
a
single core, and have tested a fully functional prototype. The
design
can
be built without any core, if so desired. The full disclosure
of
this
design with all theory, references, and test results can be
obtained
from my
web page at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~chris...k4to1Balun.pdf

The design proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above
statements to
the contrary are, to put it mildly, gravely in error.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF
Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

It's not a matter of whether I disagree with him or not. It's a matter
of him standing on a cybersoapbox and declaring to the world in numerous
ways that such a thing cannot work and that only his analysis of how it can
and cannot work is valid. He can't deny that he claimed that it was
impossible, so now he has to prove that the solution cannot possibly work
the way that he knows that it cannot work. Whatever.

Actually, I sort of like all of the visibility he's giving me. More
people are learning that I have solved the problem because of him
broadcasting it and trying desperately to dismiss it than would ever know if
I had just put it on my web page and not said anything. Free advertising.

I also owe it to him for inspiring me to solve the problem. If he
hadn't made such outrageous statements on the QRP-L list I might never have
bothered to look into the problem and learn that nobody had yet solved it,
or at least solved it and made the solution known.

You never know how and when opportunities like this are going to be
dropped in your lap. And sometimes they come from the most unexpected
places. Trick is in recognizing the opportunity and then solving it.

If people were to listen to him, the problem would never be solved
because according to him it is impossible to make such a thing. I've got
three of them on my bench right now made three different ways, and they all
work just fine despite the fact that he says they can't. The low frequency
3dB point is around 600kHz and the high frequency 3dB point is beyond
500MHz. Not bad for a couple of hours of work and a few spare parts from
other projects.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Chris:

You do not agree with any of his analysis?

You do not think this is more of an isolation transformer than a balun?
If not, how do you claim a "transmission line" quality/effect to it?

And, you did notice an insertion loss from this "device", didn't you?

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
Be sure to print it out as it changes almost daily. Very strange,
indeed.

--
Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
A very interesting analysis of this design can be found at:
http://www.w8ji.com/balun_single_core_41_analysis.htm

... for those who have not yet seen it.

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
In recent days on the QRP-L mailing list, the following remarks
were
made by Tom Rauch, W8JI regarding the design of 4:1 current baluns:

"...it is impossible to build a 4:1 ratio current balun that
uses two 1:1 baluns on a single core."

and:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the start
to finish of each transmission line. "

I have devised and modeled a 4:1 current balun using two 1:1 baluns
on
a
single core, and have tested a fully functional prototype. The
design
can
be built without any core, if so desired. The full disclosure of
this
design with all theory, references, and test results can be
obtained
from my
web page at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~chris...k4to1Balun.pdf

The design proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above
statements to
the contrary are, to put it mildly, gravely in error.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

Chris:

Well, your design certainly started me thinking. So, I began winding...
on a single core--of course...

I am NOT claiming this is unique, but it works better than the design
you presented, at least, ON my sw receiver...

.... take a look at it he
http://blake.prohosting.com/mailguy2/balun2.JPG

Warmest regards,
John


"Chris Trask" wrote in message
link.net...
Tom is absolutely desparate to prove to the world that you cannot
under
any circumstances make a 4:1 current balun on a single core. So, he
tests
the single core Guanella balun with the usual test for a current balun
(short the outputs to gound one at a time and see if the input return
loss
changes) knowing fully well that the Guanella 4:1 current balun on a
single
core will only work with floating loads.

He is now equally desparate to prove that since nobody but he
understands transmission line transformers it is impossible for anyone
else
to understand or apply them. He also fails completely in
understanding that
the ferrite used in transmission line transformers is to improve the
low
frequency end by making the transmission line appear longer.

He's truly amazing, and he is mad as hell. He claims that it is
absolutely impossible to make a 4:1 current balun on a single core
with a
pair of 1:1 transformers (of any kind whatsoever), while the Guanelle
4:1
current balun has a pair of 1:1 transformers on a single core right in
front
of him. He also makes numerous other outrageous claims that defy all
manner
of electronics theory.

Here are some of his more memorable quotes along with the URLs for
the
QRP-L archives so you can see that he is not taken out of context,
contrary
to what he says:

"...it is impossible to build a 4:1 ratio current balun that
uses two 1:1 baluns on a single core."

which in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...12/020884.html

This is a good one:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the start
to finish of each transmission line. "

which in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...21/021331.html

and the following:

"It is physically impossible to build a transmission line
current balun other than 1:1 on a single core when the
windings have mutual coupling through the core."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021442.html

as well as:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the
start to finish of each transmission line. You can find it
in voltage maps of the balun."

which is the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...21/021331.html

and additionally:

"It is quite possible to build any reasonable ratio of
conventional transformer (as long as it is the square of
turns ratio) on a single core. It is quite impossible to
build a current balun of any ratio other than 1:1 using
multiple transmission line transformers on a single core
unless flux leakage between transmission lines is terrible."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021408.html

as well as:

"It impossible to build anything but a 1:1 ratio current
balun when multiple transmission line transformers are
placed on a single core. The voltage map shows that, as does
the basic electrical rule of current baluns that all
currents in all windings must sum to zero under all load
balance conditions."

which is in the archives at:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/qrp...22/021416.html

There is no room for ambiguity here. As you can see, he is making
unsubstantiated claims of "it is impossible" and "it is well
established"
that have no basis in fact. The problem here is really that I solved
the
problem of the single-core 4:1 current balun and he is mad as hell
because
in his world such a thing cannot possibly exist. So, he makes up
additional
new electronics theories to prove that everything you know is wrong.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Chris:

You do not agree with any of his analysis?

You do not think this is more of an isolation transformer than a
balun?
If not, how do you claim a "transmission line" quality/effect to it?

And, you did notice an insertion loss from this "device", didn't you?

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
Be sure to print it out as it changes almost daily. Very
strange,
indeed.

--
Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
A very interesting analysis of this design can be found at:
http://www.w8ji.com/balun_single_core_41_analysis.htm

... for those who have not yet seen it.

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
ink.net...
In recent days on the QRP-L mailing list, the following
remarks
were
made by Tom Rauch, W8JI regarding the design of 4:1 current
baluns:

"...it is impossible to build a 4:1 ratio current balun that
uses two 1:1 baluns on a single core."

and:

"It's well established any balun made up of series / parallel
transmission lines requires different voltages from the start
to finish of each transmission line. "

I have devised and modeled a 4:1 current balun using two 1:1
baluns
on
a
single core, and have tested a fully functional prototype. The
design
can
be built without any core, if so desired. The full disclosure
of
this
design with all theory, references, and test results can be
obtained
from my
web page at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~chris...k4to1Balun.pdf

The design proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the above
statements to
the contrary are, to put it mildly, gravely in error.

Chris

,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
/ What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF
Communications
/ extinct stuff, anyhow? /
\ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
_ |/ Principal Engineer
oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
\ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
\ \ / \
\ '" \ IEEE Senior Member #40274515
. ( ) \
'-| )__| :. \ Email:
| | | | \ '.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
c__; c__; '-..'.__

Graphics by Loek Frederiks

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:01:07 GMT, "Chris Trask"
wrote:

He also fails completely in understanding that
the ferrite used in transmission line transformers is to improve the low
frequency end by making the transmission line appear longer.

Hi Chris,

Now, given that a "transmission line transformer," as distinct from a
conventional transformer built using transmission lines, does not
support flux in the ferrite; how is it that the ferrite makes the line
appear longer?

Second, if this were to occur (through the design of a "transmission
line transformer" that was a voltage BalUn); what is the advantage of
longer lines?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:16:08 GMT, "Chris Trask"
wrote:

The low frequency
3dB point is around 600kHz and the high frequency 3dB point is beyond
500MHz.

Hi Chris,

If this relates in some way to your published return loss
characteristic, then I have to offer that it is hardly representative
of the best of BalUns to offer. Sevick offers at least half a dozen
with scads less loss and operating flat to within less than a fraction
of a dB.

Now by your tying in an implicit BW from 600KHz to 500MHz, this comes
too close to brightening your teeth and improving your sex life.
Within 3dB? Given your design, and it being voltage based, supporting
flux through currents driving the core, 3dB would be a hell of a dummy
load and hardly a crowning achievement.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Chris Trask wrote:

It's not a matter of whether I disagree with him or not. It's a matter
of him standing on a cybersoapbox and declaring to the world in numerous
ways that such a thing cannot work and that only his analysis of how it can
and cannot work is valid. He can't deny that he claimed that it was
impossible, so now he has to prove that the solution cannot possibly work
the way that he knows that it cannot work. Whatever.


Please skip the personal rhetoric, and tell us how you respond to his
two main technical points about your transformer:

1. That it is simply a 2:1 transformer with an isolated primary and
secondary?

2. That it is not a true transmission line transformer, because your
transmission-line windings are not being fed with opposite polarities
across the *same* end?


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Please don't consider Chris as speaking for me, or accurately
presenting everything I said.

We all know how easy it is to lift selective portions of long exchanges
and make things sound any way we like.

The original topic was Sevik's 4:1 balun on a single core, where that
balun is made up of two 1:1 ratio choke baluns with parallel inputs and
series outputs. The imputs are excited in a transmission line mode
(differentially) and the outputs in series. The balun cores provide
only ground isolation through common mode impedance. I have a similar
balun built by MFJ, and it has terrible balance. It actually is an
offset voltage voltage balun.

Early on I specifically excluded transformer-type baluns.

I think the problem is Chris thinks we can feed a transmission line
end-to-end on a single conductor and contain energy within the line
area. As far as I see, there is nothing causing the line to operate in
a TEM mode, but it behaves only as a simple 1:1 transformer.

I beleive this is at the root of the poor efficiency and poor SWR
bandwidth of Chris' "balun".

The bandwidth problem would be caused because a transmission line in
TEM mode would have distributed capacitance cancelling series
inductance of the leads, a transformer winding does not. This also
gives rise to the distributed capacitance tending to pull the load side
to the voltage balance of the source winding, causing a problem with
high frequency balance.

The isolation transformer method has the advantage of much better low
frequency isolation and allowing a single core, but falls on its face
for SWR response, power handling for a given core size, and high
frequency balance and common mode isolation.

I think the real argument or disagreement is if the lines in a parallel
or coaxial wound primary and secondary like Chris used are in TEM mode,
or simply acting as a transformer. My contention is it is a
transformer, and those who think any two parallel or concentric
conductors when fed start-to-finish or tend-to-end on one conductor
forces a TEM mode are not viewing the system correctly.

It will be interesting to see what others think. I have a partial
analysis on my web site in a 4:1 balun analysis , and I'll be adding
more information to that as time permits.

Please, just the technical facts. I'll speak for myself.

73 Tom

By the way, the reason I think this issue is important is Sevik claims
two transmission line baluns (excited as real transmission lines, not
as isolation transformers) makes a good single core current balun. Not
only are people doing that for themselves, commercial people (like MFJ)
have copied the idea. They then advertise a single corev TL 4:1 balun
as a "4:1 current balun" to consumers.

It seems once something gets into print, it is accepted as fact even
when incorrect.

I'd like to clarify Sevik used transmission line mode, not transformer
mode coupling, in his single core 4:1 current balun. My contention is
it is impossible to build a 4:1 current balun on a single core unless
it is a primary-secondary isolation transformer, and an isolation
transformer would be a very limited performance balun compared to a
properly constructed transmission line balun.

73 Tom

Chris Trask wrote:
Tom is absolutely desparate to prove to the world that you cannot under
any circumstances make a 4:1 current balun on a single core.

Personalities aside, 4:1 single core Guanella baluns are covered
on pages 9-13 to 9-21 in "Transmission Line Transformers", by
Jerry Sevick.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

W8JI wrote:
I'd like to clarify Sevik used transmission line mode, not transformer
mode coupling, in his single core 4:1 current balun. My contention is
it is impossible to build a 4:1 current balun on a single core unless
it is a primary-secondary isolation transformer, and an isolation
transformer would be a very limited performance balun compared to a
properly constructed transmission line balun.

Just so we know which Sevik design you are talking about, is it
Fig 9-8(B) of "Transmission Line Transformers"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----