John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.

A choke balun is a device which permits a balanced circuit to be
connected to an unbalanced circuit without interference to the power
flow. In this respect it is NOT a transformer. No ratios are involved.

There are two conductors or wires in a transmission line.

In a choke balun the two wires are TOGETHER wound round a ferrite core
AS ONE WIRE. It is this pair of wires together, as one wire, which
forms the choke using the ferrite core.

The choke has inductance and inductive reactance. The reactance chokes
the current which would flow equally in both wires, in the same
direction in both wires.

Entirely independently, the pair of wires can carry the normal
transmission line currents which flow in oposite directions to each
other. If normal currents in the two wires flow in opposite
directions to each other then there is no flux induced in the ferrite
and the ferrite may just as well not be there.

So the choking action has no effect on normal transmission line
operation along the two wires.

The choke only acts on that current which flows along the line when
both wires in parallel are considered to be ONE wire.

For longitudinal currents the two wires can be considered as being
connected together at both ends. Connected in parallel. It's really a
single wire choke.

It's all very simple really. There are two INDEPENDENT currents
flowing.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:15:53 +0100, "Reg Edwards"
wrote:
You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.

Elevating your status today Reggie?

Reg Edwards wrote:
John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.

I accept that statement, although I think my idea is somewhat better than a
fog. I do think I understand relative permeability, for example.

A choke balun is a device which permits a balanced circuit to be
connected to an unbalanced circuit without interference to the power
flow. In this respect it is NOT a transformer. No ratios are involved.

There are two conductors or wires in a transmission line.

In a choke balun the two wires are TOGETHER wound round a ferrite core
AS ONE WIRE. It is this pair of wires together, as one wire, which
forms the choke using the ferrite core.


But, you said, "The presence of ferrite has hardly any effect." Why are you
bringing up ferrite again? Why is ferrite used if it has hardly any effect?
Is there not a cheaper material?


The choke has inductance and inductive reactance. The reactance chokes
the current which would flow equally in both wires, in the same
direction in both wires.

Entirely independently, the pair of wires can carry the normal
transmission line currents which flow in oposite directions to each
other. If normal currents in the two wires flow in opposite
directions to each other then there is no flux induced in the ferrite
and the ferrite may just as well not be there.

So the choking action has no effect on normal transmission line
operation along the two wires.

The choke only acts on that current which flows along the line when
both wires in parallel are considered to be ONE wire.

For longitudinal currents the two wires can be considered as being
connected together at both ends. Connected in parallel. It's really a
single wire choke.

It's all very simple really. There are two INDEPENDENT currents
flowing.
----
Reg, G4FGQ


I must be more dense than I realize. I do not see an answer to my question
in your reply. If your answer is there, I would appreciate it if you would
point it out to me.

Thanks,
John

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:45:48 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:
John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.
....
I must be more dense than I realize. I do not see an answer to my question
in your reply. If your answer is there, I would appreciate it if you would
point it out to me.

Hi John,

No, you are no more dense than the next, and Reggie's bafflegab is no
more distinct than all that which preceded it - once you discard his
pretension.

If you simply want an explanation from him, we can all see how much
desire will be filled from that. On the other hand, there may soon be
an unzipped executable released soon.

If you simply want to know why he uttered
John, yes you would. But you would not have the choke.

The ferrite is wholly transparent to the differential currents (the
balanced and thus equally opposing line currents). Its presence or
absences is immaterial. This is the abstraction of Reggie's bafflegab
for instead simply saying you don't need a choke (the lines' balance
proves that).

Now, if that condition of balance were to ever go away (like we leave
that comfortable illusion and return to reality), then the absence of
the ferrite has also rendered your "choke" chokeless (by the degree of
its contribution because in spite of Reggie's claim, the turns of your
coil remains a choke, if only an inadequate one).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

(snip)

If you simply want to know why he uttered

John, yes you would. But you would not have the choke.


The ferrite is wholly transparent to the differential currents (the
balanced and thus equally opposing line currents). Its presence or
absences is immaterial. This is the abstraction of Reggie's bafflegab
for instead simply saying you don't need a choke (the lines' balance
proves that).

Now, if that condition of balance were to ever go away (like we leave
that comfortable illusion and return to reality), then the absence of
the ferrite has also rendered your "choke" chokeless (by the degree of
its contribution because in spite of Reggie's claim, the turns of your
coil remains a choke, if only an inadequate one).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Hi, Richard -

Although your language is a bit formal for me (I lack a formal education), I
think I understand what your are saying. I am aware that the fields caused
by the differential currents cancel (mostly). It makes sense that a magnetic
core is not necessary when the fields cancel. And, I can see where the core
is useful when the fields do not cancel. I just did not interpret Reg's
information as applying to one situation and not the other.

Thank you and 73.

John

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:45:48 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:


Reg Edwards wrote:

John, I'm afraid you havn't the foggiest idea about how a choke balun
works. You are being confused by the Gurus' bafflegab.

...

I must be more dense than I realize. I do not see an answer to my question
in your reply. If your answer is there, I would appreciate it if you would
point it out to me.


Hi John,

No, you are no more dense than the next, and Reggie's bafflegab is no
more distinct than all that which preceded it - once you discard his
pretension.

Hi, Richard -

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab". I take it to be
a derogatory term indicating that the posting person believes the monologue
to be unbelievable. Or something like that. Wikipedia has nothing on the
meaning of this word. A search of Dictionary.com produces Gobbledygook which
is no help at all. Another search on Dictionary.com of Gobbledygook results
in "Unclear, wordy jargon." Is this what is meant?

Thanks,
John

John - KD5YI wrote:
I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

A Netscape web search turned up 4890 hits.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:13:05 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

Hi John,

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course! He introduces nearly every example of it with the
term nestled in his post like a road side flare. Bafflegab is what
was written before you (the second poster to answer) got your say in.

There are similar usage examples of his with "gurus," a term that was
not coined by him, but similarly littered in postings for effect in
his (and imitators') attempts in social climbing. "Gurus" are those
who got to say it first.

So, in the pecking order of it all, "gurus" write "bafflegab" -
unless, of course, you posted first. As a strategic variation on this
theme, there is the inverted-guru-gambit that is something like en
passant. That is, you don't post an answer even if you do manage to
be first, you post how it will be answered wrong by others who you
claim to be gurus.

Reggie has been most influential in these stylistic touches and more
than a few correspondents ape his method. Unfortunately, this also
reveals how quickly novelty descends into cliché; and how wikipedia
trails in social currency.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

John - KD5YI wrote:
I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course!

Sorry, Reg didn't invent the word. It's been around for more than
half a century.

"Bafflegab - This word hit the newspapers and public notice on 19 January
1952, the day after a plaque was presented to its inventor to mark his
creation of this invaluable word. He was Milton A Smith, assistant general
counsel for the US Chamber of Commerce."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:13:05 GMT, John - KD5YI
wrote:


I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of "bafflegab".


Hi John,

It is a term of invention by the greatest practitioner of that art -
Reggie, of course! He introduces nearly every example of it with the
term nestled in his post like a road side flare. Bafflegab is what
was written before you (the second poster to answer) got your say in.

There are similar usage examples of his with "gurus," a term that was
not coined by him, but similarly littered in postings for effect in
his (and imitators') attempts in social climbing. "Gurus" are those
who got to say it first.

So, in the pecking order of it all, "gurus" write "bafflegab" -
unless, of course, you posted first. As a strategic variation on this
theme, there is the inverted-guru-gambit that is something like en
passant. That is, you don't post an answer even if you do manage to
be first, you post how it will be answered wrong by others who you
claim to be gurus.

Reggie has been most influential in these stylistic touches and more
than a few correspondents ape his method. Unfortunately, this also
reveals how quickly novelty descends into cliché; and how wikipedia
trails in social currency.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard -

I must say that the meaning is no clearer to me now. Your explanation makes
no sense to me. I apologize for my lack of understanding.

Thanks for trying to explain nevertheless.

Cheers,
John