Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 7, 12:30*pm, dave wrote:
RHF wrote: On Sep 6, 8:27 pm, wrote: On Sep 6, 8:51 pm, John *wrote: On 9/6/2010 4:58 PM, RHF wrote: ... JS - it sounds like you are . . . still stuck on "17" - pal ~ RHF * *. I can't believe they can take my tax dollars, good money, and have the school system turn out witless idiots ... Regards, JS Unfortunately- more often than we hope our hard earned (read blood) money collected by the taxman goes to waste. From what I see the entire educational system has become a complete farcicle. - How about sending men to Mars? - That can be much more beneficial- at least it - might revive NASA and create some jobs. - May be... -wrt- NASA Sending Men to Mars : How about we spend all that time and money on 'fixing' our Education System first. What good is it to send Men to Mars . . . -if- The People back on Earth can't spell M-a-r-s -and- Don't know that Mars exists or anything about it . . . Why train American engineers when S. Asian engineers are more cost-effective? *That makes no business sense. "You want fries with that?"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ....not if the potato comes from China !!! |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wonderful discussion! :-)
you just shoot a lot of amps though wire that was NEVER meant to take the amps, this is obvious by the manufacturer saying not to run 5 watts though it. No, I didn't do that. I agree, it might have fried the wire or magnetized the toroid. The problem was all between the outer shell and the ground lug-washer on the SO239 side of the device. That contact was not accessible as it was potted in resin. I had already removed the magnetics. The 15A flowed only through lug-washer and the outer conductor. Isn't there a little factors like cutting the Antenna Wire to the 'right-length' and having the 'correct length' of Coax Cable that contribute to a good "Match" : At least for one SW Band ? ~ RHF The MLB is meant to give a good-enough, install-and-forget, receive- only match between a 50 ohm line and a random wire whose Z wildly gyrates between 30-1000 ohm in and out of the complex field. Any RF transformer turning 50 ohm into 300 to 600 ohm is vastly superior to a direct connection. There are receivers that include exactly that kind of transformer between the inputs for "50 ohm" and "600 ohm" or "wire". I have seen such transformers working reasonably well all the way between .1 and 30MHz. The MLB is nothing special but works like that, on a 300/1 bandwidth. The Lowe 124-225-250 etc. contain such a transformer, and work OK down to 30 (thirty) kHz, a 1000/1 bandwidth. By "working" I just mean that a given signal from a wire antenna produces dramatically better results when fed via the transformer than direct to 50 ohm input. That improvement geverally jibes with the source being hi-Z. I've never been able to reproduce such broadband behavior in a toroid I wound myself. The Palomar Associates MLB clone was OK but weaker on MF-LF. The ICE ununs come in lower and higher frequency range versions. I have no idea what the trick is in the transformers used by Lowe and RF-Systems, but it must be very simple, e.g. a mix that compromises by having a somewhat higher loss all over or by saturating at low power levels [over 5W ![]() be smtg that normal 1:9 ununs made with the usual HF mixes don't do terribly well. As for transmission: go on a ship, and if it's old enough you might still even see a nice chunky metal case with the leftover transformer matching the MF or low-HF random wire to a coax, complete with anti- flashover insulator. Every time the radio room was removed from the wire antenna, it made economic sense to deliver the 100-1000W RF by standard radio guide (coax) than via a special high-voltage, high- impedance line made wire suspended inside a large copper pipe. In the real (professional) world NOBODY in at least the last 30 years tried to cut MF or HF antennas to resonate on a special frequency. Broadcasting dipole arrays were ~ 2:1, MW (AM) towers (and even VHF- UHF antennas in space applications back in the day) are roughly sized for radiation angle requirements, not for natural resonance. A 5/8 lambda vertical is like that. Professional broadband dipoles normally "guarantee" a SWR mismatch under 3:1 over 2-30MHz, and I remember UHF space applications with 1:10 SWR on short coax lines that were compensated at the radio end of short low power and low loss coax runs. In many applications antenna mismatch is practically irrelevant as long as it does not multiply losses in the transmission line. It's a consideration that corresponds to the cos-phi concern in electric power transmission. A wild mismatch may generate extra current or voltage that will cause additional Joule loss in conductor and dielectric. In power transmission, 50-60Hz wavelength is so large that you don't really get localized voltage peaks and throughs due to reflected and direct power interference patterns, but at RF you see that too, so you get both added losses and extra insulation breakage risk. But if the run is short, and the power is low, both losses and overvoltages can be safely ignored, and reflection and Z mismatch can be addressed at the radio end. In a long coax run, the huge mismatch of a nonresonant wire to a lo-Z coax is nontrivial, and a transformer can actually nicely cooperate with an ATU at the other end. Today's AUTOMATIC ATUs are now routinely placed at the antenna end. Not needing human attention, it makes sense to move them over there, in which case a RF transformer becomes irrelevant. Antenna-side MF transformers on ships are a thing from the indoor manual ATU and early automatic ATU era. But even today, antenna side transformers are the rule in the HF market. That's what you do to improve match between a generally-high impedance antenna and a low impedance coax of a broadband dipole. The few rhombics still in use either have a Z-transforming balun or an extremely low loss and broadly Z-matched balanced HV line. Ditto for beverages - you could just connect coax and wire, but it would be lossy, and nobody does it. The broadband no-transformer no-ATU alternative exists. In practice, only the military can afford the metal masses of large HF antennas that have no clear resonance and reasonably narrow Z range without RF transformer [and w/o resistor... :-P ], like inverted-cone on ground plane, double-cone dipole, discone. Also (few) hams use log-periodic rotatables. An MIT dorm used to have a fixed LP all-wire ham antenna, never heard of a ham using a fixed "half-LP" vertical wire curtain. Even with such antennas I'd still leave an automatic ATU in line if already available. And, not coincidentally, such antennas are generally sized for 13 MHz. Below that it's mostly broadband wire & transformer country. "Toss the piece of cr*p and get/wind something decent ... " Yes, one can surely do that! ((narrower response or you tell me the simple trick for practicable 300:1 width) and/or (heavy, ground level or masthead commercial unit) and/or ((buying toroid, casing, connectors, strain-relief, sealant) and (winding, drilling case, installing strain relief, connectors, soldering, sealing))) vs. (solder, glue, seal, use ![]() |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 15, 4:09*pm, dave wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote: And I can confirm that, with a transmitter-side (shack end) matcher/tuner, and good, low-loss coax, you can do away with the transformer. All that does is match the 50 Ohm transmitter to the 50 Ohm (or less) transmission line. It doesn't address the mismatch between the transmission line and the antenna at all. True, but not necessarily a problem. The battlefield is kept out, on antenna and transmission line. On the radio side of the coax you do see a function of the remote mismatch both in terms of wrong impedance and in terms of a partly reflected wave delayed by the travel time back and forth and with I/V out of phase due to the reactance at the other end. What an ATU does is 1- compensating the reactive mismatch so that the power source sees a resistive load 2- rephasing the incoming reflected wave to match the outgoing 3- providing impedance transformation at the transmitter end. The result is maximized power transfer, and a clean load from the p.o.v. of the transmitter, w/ minimized apparent reflection. I think 1 and 2 are mathematicaly dual to each other (please someone confirm!). Not so sure how 3 fits in but it prolly does. The price you pay for this is a nice mess along the transmission line, with power being reflected back and forth in an infinite convergent series of quickly dropping factors until radiated by the antenna, or lost en route to heat and line radiation, while minimizing the stress on the transmitter. Nodes with higher current and voltage along the way also increase Joule losses - but, again, this may be the dual of expressing the loss due to reflection, I am not sure if there is a nonlinearity at work here. Having everything matched with the minimum use of concentrated L and C is beneficial (inside the radio, in the ATU, in the transmission line, and appended to the antenna), but if the transmisson line is very efficient and not overly stressed (foam or air insulated, decently sized conductors and insulator, not overheating nor breaking insulation) a matching network close to the radio side is bearable. Quite characteristically, as frequencies rise losses mount. Losses along the same line at a similar mismatch may be negligible at LF, acceptable at HF, excessive at V-UHF. This is why this is so often done in professional applications. In general. an antenna side matching device is better than radio side, and no matching network is better than with, but perfection is not always indidpensable. For example, the advantages of radiating in a certain geometry (e.g. a Yagi, a nonresonant vertical...) or with greater radiation resistance, may more than compensate for additional losses due to a necessary concentrated-reactance matching device. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, spamhog writes On Sep 15, 4:09*pm, dave wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: And I can confirm that, with a transmitter-side (shack end) matcher/tuner, and good, low-loss coax, you can do away with the transformer. All that does is match the 50 Ohm transmitter to the 50 Ohm (or less) transmission line. It doesn't address the mismatch between the transmission line and the antenna at all. True, but not necessarily a problem. The battlefield is kept out, on antenna and transmission line. On the radio side of the coax you do see a function of the remote mismatch both in terms of wrong impedance and in terms of a partly reflected wave delayed by the travel time back and forth and with I/V out of phase due to the reactance at the other end. What an ATU does is 1- compensating the reactive mismatch so that the power source sees a resistive load 2- rephasing the incoming reflected wave to match the outgoing 3- providing impedance transformation at the transmitter end. The result is maximized power transfer, and a clean load from the p.o.v. of the transmitter, w/ minimized apparent reflection. I think 1 and 2 are mathematicaly dual to each other (please someone confirm!). Not so sure how 3 fits in but it prolly does. The price you pay for this is a nice mess along the transmission line, with power being reflected back and forth in an infinite convergent series of quickly dropping factors until radiated by the antenna, or lost en route to heat and line radiation, while minimizing the stress on the transmitter. Nodes with higher current and voltage along the way also increase Joule losses - but, again, this may be the dual of expressing the loss due to reflection, I am not sure if there is a nonlinearity at work here. Having everything matched with the minimum use of concentrated L and C is beneficial (inside the radio, in the ATU, in the transmission line, and appended to the antenna), but if the transmisson line is very efficient and not overly stressed (foam or air insulated, decently sized conductors and insulator, not overheating nor breaking insulation) a matching network close to the radio side is bearable. Quite characteristically, as frequencies rise losses mount. Losses along the same line at a similar mismatch may be negligible at LF, acceptable at HF, excessive at V-UHF. This is why this is so often done in professional applications. In general. an antenna side matching device is better than radio side, and no matching network is better than with, but perfection is not always indidpensable. For example, the advantages of radiating in a certain geometry (e.g. a Yagi, a nonresonant vertical...) or with greater radiation resistance, may more than compensate for additional losses due to a necessary concentrated-reactance matching device. Since Dave's dismissal of my suggestion/confirmation, I started several draft replies, but each time got bogged down in detail. However, I think that Spamhog's posting sums up the situation pretty well. What must be realised is that you are not using the tuner/matcher (at the radio end of the coaxial feeder) to match into the 50 ohm Zo of the coax, and then, as an afterthought, connecting a totally mismatched antenna on the far end. What actually happens is that the antenna feed impedance is transformed by the electrical length and the Zo of the feeder (and also its loss), and the tuner/matcher (at the radio end) is adjusted so that it matches whatever impedance is 'seen' looking into the feeder. It matches the whole antenna system, ie the antenna plus feeder. Admittedly, this arrangement only works well if the feeder losses are low. Unless the antenna is (fortunately) a good match to the feeder, the SWR on the feeder will be high, and the losses could be much higher than if the there was a good match at the antenna end. It follows that, to minimize the loss, you need to use the lowest loss type of feeder you can lay your hands on. Nice, chunky CATV trunk cable is a good choice, if your friendly neighbourhood cable company can be persuaded donate some to you - especially as fibre optics are rapidly replacing coax. Note that this is certainly not the 'best' way of doing things. For receiving, it may - or may not - work better than using a 9:1 transformer at the antenna end. Both arrangements are a compromise. However, you can certainly transmit with this system and, from what I understand, at considerably higher powers than you can transmit through a 9:1 transformer. Low-loss TV coax is probably OK for 100 to 200W, although, for really high powers, you may need to think about the implications of high SWR, voltage breakdown, and current burn-out. Of course, an auto-tuner at the antenna end would be the best, but they don't work on receive-only. -- Ian |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , dave No. What do you mean by "match"? The tuner/matcher transforms whatever impedance that is connected to its 'output' to 50 ohms resistive at its 'input'. That way, a transmitter feeds into a 50 ohm load - which is normally what it will be designed to feed into. When receiving, the same applies (although, of course, the signal is passing through the tuner/matcher from the opposite direction). Its 'input' on transmit is its 'output' on receive, so the output (which feeds the receiver) is 50 ohms - which is what most communications receivers are designed to be fed from. In practice, if purely receiving, you will normally simply twiddle the tuner/matcher for strongest signal on the receiver (ie maximum smoke). It doesn't really matter too much whether or not you actually achieve 50 ohms at the matcher 'output' port. Or have I got things wrong? You are describing a "transmatch" when used between the generator and the transmission line. This prevents the VSWR from frying the transmitter. It does nothing to make the antenna work any better. The transmitter can feed 50 Ohm co-ax directly. A tuner at the far end of the transmission line will improve radiation while matching the load to the transmission line and back to the transmitter. The radiation improvement may be negligible or more dramatic, depending on the type of antenna. When receiving you don't worry about frying the transistors (unless you have a 2001D/2010!) so you just want to make sure you don't break the hose rule (NO Higher Z generator into Lower Z load). That is why a 9:1 transformer works OK for receiving. If you transmit through it the transmitter will see close to a short circuit if the antenna is resonant. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Geoffrey S. Mendelson writes Decent quality RG-6 coax is easy to find at any of the home improvement type shops, satellite TV dealers, etc. It's a lot better than the RG-59 or RG-59/U that was sold in the past. If possible, if the coax is fairly long, I'd try and 'acquire' something a bit less lossy than RG6 (at 50MHz, 5dB/100m, 1.5dB/100'. For cable TV, RG11 (3.1dm/100m, 0.95dB/100') is sometimes a 'long drop' alternative to RG6 or RG7. But you can do better than that. A Google should bring up specs. This site gives a good selection. The CATV trunk cables look interesting, but will usually be literally a bit 'too hard to handle'. http://caledonian-cables.com/product/Coaxial%20Cables/coaxial.htm Davis RF Buryflex is da ****. |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote: If possible, if the coax is fairly long, I'd try and 'acquire' something a bit less lossy than RG6 (at 50MHz, 5dB/100m, 1.5dB/100'. Since this is an SWL group, a more meaningful number would be 15 mHz, and I'm not sure that a loss of 1.5dB is going to noticable. 5dB would, but how many people have 100m runs of coax? Geoff. You'd be surprised. Even at HF, there are QRP applications where a dB or 2 makes a significant difference. This is a DC to Daylight group. |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm simply quoting the figures (as given) as a comparison. Any SWL worth his salt should be able of 'translating' the loss figures from 50 to 15MHz!! I'm a Dreaded No Code Amateur Extra and I have to look it up. http://www.soontai.com/cal_rtvswr.html |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Are you running the RF gain at maximum? Apart from (usually) being necessary to obtain the 'correct' S-meter reading, when you are actually listening, it's a good idea to back it off as far as is necessary to keep the AGC just working (on SSB, at least). Of course, using the front end attenuator does allow the AGC to function flat out but, again on SSB, even with the best of receivers, you still get the inevitable rise of background noise during gaps in the speech (especially if the gaps are long). I find this very unpleasant - especially on strong signals. Somehow, the AGC time constant never seems to be correct - for my ears, at least. I wouldn't consider buying a receiver for serious listening if it didn't have the ability to turn off the AGC completely, and if it din't have an RF gain control. You can get SSB to sound like FM. Back when GHFS was happening you could leave it on 11176 USB 24/7 and never hear anything between the calls except the occasional chirpsounder bloop. If you were also listening to 8993 on another radio, you'd hear the same bloop a half second earlier or later, give or take. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Magnetic Longwire Balun: weird resistance. What is normal? | Shortwave | |||
Magnetic Longwire Balun Question !! | Antenna | |||
The Verdict {One Man's Opinion} : Magnetic Longwire Balun IsTo... | Shortwave | |||
RIGGING - The LMZ-75, SWLZ and RF Systems MLB (Magnetic LongWire Balun) | Shortwave |