Page 24 of third printing 2002.

Single core Guanella balun.

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

================================

Especially on this newsgroup.
At least until it is refuted.
How can one distinguish between fact and fiction?
The gift of the gab and length of diatribe appear to predominate.

John,
Yes, that's very nice. A pair of trifilar windings on a single core.
That's a variation of a 1:1 transmission line balun that I found in a
textbook. I've put the schematic and photo in a PDF file on my web page at:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~chris...M1to1Balun.PDF

I'm qite certain that the two dots connecting the outer conductors to the
shield box are in error as in the photo the outer insulating jacket is not
broken. And those connections do not make sense, at least not immediately,
as the voltages and currents at that point are dissimilar. Also, there
should only be the one ground connection at the near end of the second
cable.

Seems to me that you could use this approach to make a nice, inexpensive
and lightwieght balun with just two 4-foot pieces of coax. I would
certainly like someone to try that and let us know how well it works.

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:

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

Reg Edwards wrote:
How can one distinguish between fact and fiction?

The Scientific Method comes to mind.
--
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! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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?


The ferrite makes the line look longer by way of it's permeability, but
that's obvious and I think I'm not understanding your question correctly.
Dye and Granberg cover that in their Motorola application notes as well as
in the section on TLTs in their book "Radio Frequency Transistors:
Principles and Practical Applications." They briefly mention in the book
that the coupling takes place in the magnetic material only at low
frequencies. This effectively makes the line(s)look longer as you are no
longer functioning as a TLT but instead as a flux-coupled transformer, and
the line length is now a function of the physical length of the conductors
and the permeability of the material. In practice a thumbnail approximation
is generally:

L' = L x sqrt(u)


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?


It's a matter of what's practical. If you were to use very short lines
along with a high permeability material such as Fair-Rite 73, you may
encouter a region where the lines are too short to couple properly and the
magnetic material is well above the ferroresonance frequency. And even when
you do get into the flux-coupling môde, you still need to have sufficient
line in order to obtain decent coupling at lower frequencies. So, you have
to balance the two (line length and magnetic material) in order to obtain a
wideband transformer that has consistent performance over the desired
frequency range.

I hope I've covered everything here adequately.

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

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
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

Yes, as well as elsewhere.

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
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
=----

Whoa, let's reign back here a bit. The test was still for a 200-ohm
load, but it was made asymmetric (150-ohms and 50-ohms) in order to
accomodate the 50-ohm network analyzer. The 6dB loss is a result of the
voltage at the test port being Vin/2, but the voltage at the other output
port with the 150-ohm resistor is 3Vin/2, so there is no excessive loss
through the balun. In actuality, there is less than 0.1dB of power loss in
the prototype that I made. The test was made to determine if the balance
was correct.

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

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
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

W8JI wrote:
Page 24 of third printing 2002.
Single core Guanella balun.

Unfortunately, I don't have that edition.
Is it four windings?

1---/////////---2
3---/////////---4
5---/////////---6
7---/////////---8

with (1 to 5) and (3 to 7) as the unbalanced input,
(4 to 6) tied together, and (2) and (8) as the balanced
output?
--
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! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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


No. It is a pair of 1:1 transformers on a single core. I can make it
work equally well by making the two transformers on separate cores. I can
also make it with a pair of equal length coaxial cables. Both of these
realisations defeat his claim that it is a 2:1 transformer. But at the same
time, neither of them answer his claim that it is impossible to make a 4:1
current balun on a single core with a pair of 1:1 transformers.


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?


This isn't even a gray area. We're making a BALUN, in other words a
transformer that has an UNbalanced port and a BALanced port, and in this
case fully meeting the definition of a current balun. If we were to accept
the above statement, then we would have no choice except to conclude that in
no circumstances could we make a BALUN with transmission line transformers
because in all cases of BALUNs one port is fed unbalanced.

Making transmission line transformers is not difficult, although Tom is
making it appear as though it's some sort of great mustery. For a length of
transmission line that is sufficiently short with respect to wavelength,
meaning less than an eighth of a wavelength in practice, the following rules
are observed:

1. The voltage across the one conductor is equal to the
voltage of the other conductor, both in magnitude and
in phase.

2. The current in the one conductor is equal in magnitude
but oppostite in phase to the current in the other
conductor.

These basic understandings of transmission line transformers are well
established and understood. Gary Breed brought the concept down to the
essentials in:

Breed, Gary, "Transmission Line Transformer Basics," Applied
Microwave & Wireless, Vol. 10, No. 4, May 1998, p. 60.

It all comes down to a difference between what is known by way of
established theory and practice versus trying to convince people that
everything we 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

"Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message
...
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

Chris:

Well, I certainly can see that your claim it is two 1:1 baluns on a
single core is technically accurate--the primaries are in parallel and
their secondaries are in series... that seems clear enough that it
cannot be argued. I can't imagine all NOT to be in agreement on this
point.

However, with no electrical connection (transmission line) existing
between primary/secondary, and the voltage and current only conducted
between these windings by a magnetic flux--I CAN'T see how a "true"
balun can be argued, clearly--as opposed to "rf transformer."

But, I am giving this thought--as I am sure are others... I never
thought about the humble "balun"/"rf transformer" in some of these ways
before--possibly I am not alone... either and anyway, I enjoy the
thinking you have established here...

John

"Chris Trask" wrote in message
link.net...

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


No. It is a pair of 1:1 transformers on a single core. I can make
it
work equally well by making the two transformers on separate cores. I
can
also make it with a pair of equal length coaxial cables. Both of
these
realisations defeat his claim that it is a 2:1 transformer. But at
the same
time, neither of them answer his claim that it is impossible to make a
4:1
current balun on a single core with a pair of 1:1 transformers.


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?


This isn't even a gray area. We're making a BALUN, in other words
a
transformer that has an UNbalanced port and a BALanced port, and in
this
case fully meeting the definition of a current balun. If we were to
accept
the above statement, then we would have no choice except to conclude
that in
no circumstances could we make a BALUN with transmission line
transformers
because in all cases of BALUNs one port is fed unbalanced.

Making transmission line transformers is not difficult, although
Tom is
making it appear as though it's some sort of great mustery. For a
length of
transmission line that is sufficiently short with respect to
wavelength,
meaning less than an eighth of a wavelength in practice, the following
rules
are observed:

1. The voltage across the one conductor is equal to the
voltage of the other conductor, both in magnitude and
in phase.

2. The current in the one conductor is equal in magnitude
but oppostite in phase to the current in the other
conductor.

These basic understandings of transmission line transformers are well
established and understood. Gary Breed brought the concept down to
the
essentials in:

Breed, Gary, "Transmission Line Transformer Basics," Applied
Microwave & Wireless, Vol. 10, No. 4, May 1998, p. 60.

It all comes down to a difference between what is known by way of
established theory and practice versus trying to convince people that
everything we 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

"Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message
...
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