John's big thing in life is to do an internet search on any current subject,
he then regurgitates it so he can appear to have something to add to the
discussion.

"W8JI" wrote in message
oups.com...
Aw comen on now John. Every single link coupled transformer from the
1900's to today works on the principle, as do link coupled tuners or
matching systems.

Ian White wrote,

"Sorry, but it all seems to come down to the definitions of "current
balun" and "transmission line transformer" that one chooses to adopt.
Rather than referencing those definitions, please can you quote them
here, in full?"

I agree. In fact, in thinking about it, I realized that I'm more
likely to use the terms "choke balun" and "transformer balun" than
current and voltage balun.

Roy's analysis of (1:1 current/choke) baluns, available at
http://eznec.com/misc/ibalun.txt, may be interesting reading for
lurkers here who may be confused by this thread.

Cheers,
Tom

W8JI wrote:
Making up a new definition is not the same as producing a new or novel
invention. This is almost like the new invention call Fractal antennas
or E-H antennas that don't use "old" technology!

This thread has got me wondering if "Ruthroff" balun is the
same as "voltage" balun and if "Guanella" balun is the same as
"current" balun, as was explained to me once by a balun guru.
--
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 =---

Tom stands up and tells the world what he thinks We know who Tom is, and of
his many accomplishments. He, unlike you, signs his name to his statements.

You have obviously failed to make a dent in the technical arena, or like Tom
you would sign a cogent rebuttal as opposed to your school yard antics.

If you can't compete on a technical level, sit back down in the peanut
gallery and learn grasshopper.


"WdntULik2no" wrote in message
news:inmngeygcwrq14x.280620051612@kirk...
w8ji

please tell me some damn fool has not put you in a position to
influence people

you are an idiot

WdntULik2no

I just happened upon an App. note written by Philips
Semiconductors (ECO6907) titled "Design of HF wideband power
transformers" which states for both 4:1 and 9:1 transmission
line transformers that they CAN be wound on a single core if
desired for certain conditions (see sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6).

http://www.semiconductors.philips.co...es/ECO6907.pdf

73,
Larry, W0QE

"Larry Benko" wrote in message
...
I just happened upon an App. note written by Philips
Semiconductors (ECO6907) titled "Design of HF wideband power
transformers" which states for both 4:1 and 9:1 transmission
line transformers that they CAN be wound on a single core if
desired for certain conditions (see sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6).


http://www.semiconductors.philips.co...es/ECO6907.pdf

73,
Larry, W0QE

And, that comes in TWO parts. ECO6907 and ECO 7213. BOTH wonderful
resources, and both apply to the discussion here. (They DO call them
"conventional transformers" and not Baluns.)

W4ZCB

just happened upon an App. note written by Philips
Semiconductors (ECO6907) titled "Design of HF wideband power
transformers" which states for both 4:1 and 9:1 transmission
line transformers that they CAN be wound on a single core if
desired for certain conditions (see sections 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6).
http://www.semiconductors.phil=ADips...i=ADcationnot=
..=2E.

73,
Larry, W0QE

Hi Larry,

Don't fall into the trap of swallowing out of context quotes by Trask.
That's an old tired game, and it only results in everyone chasing their
tails to argue about nothing.

1=2E) I very specifically excluded primary-secondary type transformers
from the single core current balun statement.

2=2E) I very specifically was speaking of a dual transmission line 1:1
balun Sevik described using two 1:1 transmission line current baluns on
one core.

If you can think of a way to build a transmission line balun that way
that is a current balun, please let us all know. No one has been able
to do it so far.

Calling a primary-secondary transformer a "transmission line" does not
count, so no "creative" ways to describe something following Lenz's
laws rather than TEM mode is necessary. Everyone already knows a
conventional primary secondary transformer will work.

73 Tom

The article calls all of the devices transformers, not "conventional
transformers" including the phase inverter that is a TLT.

"KD5NWA" wrote in message
oups.com...
The article calls all of the devices transformers, not "conventional
transformers" including the phase inverter that is a TLT.

Actually, if you'll take a read of part 2 of the application note ECO6907,
(ECO7213, which I referenced) It specifically states that part 1 was devoted
entirely to the design of *transmission line transformers*, which had the
advantage of the widest possible bandwidth, but several disadvantages as
well. Therefore, part 2 considers the possibility of applying a
*conventional transformer* if those constraints were undesireable.

Sheeeeeeeeesh!
W4ZCB

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?


Ian,
I wanted to give a more thorough reply to your question earlier, but at
the time a spontaneous reply did not seem to be sufficient. So, I have put
together an extensive tutorial on the subject of the theory, synthesis, and
practical considerations in the design of transmission line transformers
that is a result of over two decades of designing these things as a hands-on
hardware designer:

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

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