It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:08 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 

Install the UnUn or not ?
Poll ended at Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:42 pm
No - worse losses on all bands 14%  14%  [ 2 ]
Yes - better on all bands, and reduced common-mode 50%  50%  [ 7 ]
Maybe - but don't use the T200-2 21%  21%  [ 3 ]
Perhaps - reduced losses on 40m and 15m, but worse on other bands 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Yes - you'll win all the 160m contests 7%  7%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 14

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Silent Key

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 5637
Location: Northampton IO92ME
Feedback: 1 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Folks,

Here we go with the next Puzzle - this one about the popular Vertical+UnUn combination:

"I'm thinking of building a 34ft vertical for use on 80m thru 10m using some wire and a fibreglass fishing-pole. I know how important it is to have a good earth, so I'll be installing a number of ground radials. I can't afford a remote tuner to put at the base of the vertical, so I'm going to have to feed it directly with RG213 coax - about 100ft in total - and user a wide-range tuner at the shack end. But I'm worried about the losses I might incur in the feedline. One of the local antenna "experts" says I should build a 9:1 UnUn using a T200-2 core, and this will provide a match to the feedline and reduce losses. I guess he's probably right because that's what many of the commercial antennas use .... but I wonder ....."

1) No, it's a bad thing to do - the UnUn will make the losses worse on all bands

2) Yes, it's a good thing to do - the UnUn will limit the wide impedance excursions, and improve the match to the RG213 on all bands; it will reduce common-mode current on the feedline; and the T200-2 core is cheap and readily available.

3) The UnUn may be useful, depending on which bands are your main interest; but the T200-2 core is a poor choice for this application

4) The UnUn will reduce the losses on 40m and 15m where the vertical is resonant, but it will make things worse on all the other bands

5) Install the UnUn and try 160m - it'll go like a bomb!

Enjoy!

Steve G3TXQ

_________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;" (Lord Kelvin 1883)


Last edited by G3TXQ on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:42 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:57 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Cottingham (Hull)
Feedback: 11 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Steve,

I may be been a little picky but can we assume a antenna tuner is being used in the shack or is it being fed direct from the trx ?

Sorry to through a spanner in the puzzle but curiosity got me after reading the description of the setup.

Sam


Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:09 pm
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:39 pm
Posts: 6008
Location: Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Bomber County) IO93TA WAB-TF04
Feedback: 0 (0%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Steve, thanks for continuing with the posers.

I am going to stick my neck out here and plump for option 2.

I looked into doing this type of vertical following the design publicised by M0VEY and if I remember right the answer in #2 fits that design.

But I think a tuner is needed to tune all bands reasonably satisfactorily.

There, I've put my neck in the noose, now someone can pull it tight with reason why I'm sooooo wrong.

Never mind, no lives were lost in the making of this post. :oops:


Alan

_________________
73 de Alan.

Today I broke my personal record for the most consecutive days alive, despite Covid 19 - I hope to better it again tomorrow.


Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:33 pm
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:37 am
Posts: 10570
Location: Manchester IO83TK
Feedback: 60 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
id go with 3 steve,

if im not mistaken the toroid works best at around 10-11 mhz then starts to get lossy. any bands that may of had an acceptable swr without a transformer will of course be made worse by the 9.1 transformer but the high swr's may be better than if no transformer were used.

number 4 is wrong i think as 40m should be near resonant and 15 should show an acceptable swr.

not sure on number 2 as i dont think it will improve the swr on all bands ,in fact it will make some worse ..

so number 3 for me....

billy

_________________
Voice is for CBers, amateur radio operators, the average citizen, and the military. In other words, voice is for everyone with a mouth. CW is for those who choose this newer mode of communication. Newer? Why yes. Voice has been around for a million years.


Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:40 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Silent Key

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 5637
Location: Northampton IO92ME
Feedback: 1 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
m3hku wrote:
Steve,

I may be been a little picky but can we assume a antenna tuner is being used in the shack or is it being fed direct from the trx ?

Sorry to through a spanner in the puzzle but curiosity got me after reading the description of the setup.

Sam


Sam,

A good question! I should have made it clear that a wide-range tuner will be used back at the shack.

Thanks for asking.

Original Puzzle posting now edited to include mention of the tuner at the shack.

73,
Steve G3TXQ

_________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;" (Lord Kelvin 1883)


Last edited by G3TXQ on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:46 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:57 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Cottingham (Hull)
Feedback: 11 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
I have gone for number three as the unun will be of use on bands that show a poor match to the feedline., although as the antenna is to be used over 80-10 the unun will have a negative effect on some bands as the unun will be always in line and it may not be required on some bands actually creating a mismatch.

I have cheated on the t-200 part of the question as I have a trrick up my sleeve that i will reveal after Steve answers.

The thing to do would be to model the antenna and work out the impedance and other stats on each band that you want to operate on, then work out if the Unun is more use or not over all bands of operation and then answer the question :lol: .

Probably a load of waffle :shock:

Sam


Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:11 pm
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:39 pm
Posts: 2138
Location: Bolton IO83SO
Feedback: 205 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
I'll opt for #2 based on practical experience with one........still learning antenna sciences though....regard my self as apprentice level.

_________________
Out and about www.aprs.fi - G8JIT-i

Failure is not an option!


Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:37 pm
Profile Send private message YIM WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 1709
Location: Otley, West Yorkshire : IO93dv
Feedback: 13 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
I'm going for option number 5 and will be selling the resultant Un-Un on Ebay
with the caveat that G3TXQ said so :D :D :D

Seriously though.... I'm going with option number 2 also. After building something similar
and then plotting the result using a Vector Network Analyser option two is the closest.
In fact the numbers looked very convincing on 2m ( 50Ohm imp / 0 reactance / SWR 1:1 )
but then again there are lies, more lies, and damned lies.

Though as Billy has said, a T200-2 on first look may appear to be not the most suitable
torroid to use but it's possibly the best " make do " device. A T200-6 will certainly cover
the the higher bands but it's specified lower operating frequency is 10MHz.

Regards


Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:30 am
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:37 am
Posts: 10570
Location: Manchester IO83TK
Feedback: 60 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
just to ad i think the quality of the construction of the unun will effect its efficiency thus its losses.. not just the toroid choice..

billy

_________________
Voice is for CBers, amateur radio operators, the average citizen, and the military. In other words, voice is for everyone with a mouth. CW is for those who choose this newer mode of communication. Newer? Why yes. Voice has been around for a million years.


Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:32 am
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Silent Key

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 5637
Location: Northampton IO92ME
Feedback: 1 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Hi Folks,

At the time of this posting we had the following votes:

#1: 2 #2: 7 #3: 3 #4 : 1 #5: 1

There's some element of truth in each of the answers (even #5), but as the "judge & final arbiter" I'm declaring Answer#3 as the only fully correct statement ;)

Pressing into service a non-trapped, single-element vertical on several bands seems to be a relatively recent phenomena - I don't recall it being used widely years ago. It has the virtue of simplicity, but it also has some disadvantages as we shall see.

Here's my reasoning to support Answer#3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brain Hurt" level: *

The presence or absence of the UnUn cannot affect the radiation pattern of the vertical, so we can ignore that as a factor, although we may return to it in another Puzzle. Nor can it affect the feedpoint impedance at the base of the vertical, and hence the ground losses. What the UnUn does affect is the impedance "seen" by the coax, and therefore the coax losses and the tuner losses; and of course the UnUn itself may be lossy.

Firstly let's look at the situation if we don't include an UnUn: We can model 34ft of vertical wire over average ground, include some modest ground losses (10ohms) to allow for the radial system not being perfect, and check the feedpoint impedance on every band 160m thru 10m. As expected we will get a very wide range of impedances from 12-j1250ohms on 160m where the vertical is electrically very short, through 47+j0ohms on 40m where it is a resonant quarter-wave, to 2651+j0ohms on 20m where it is a resonant half-wave.

[Don't be put off by the "j" stuff! It's just a shorthand for separating the resistive and reactive components of the impedance. So 12-j1150 is the equivalent of a 12ohm resistor in series with a capacitor with 1150ohms reactance. A plus sign in front of the "j" would indicate an inductor.]

Of course these widely varying impedances cause widely varying VSWRs on the coax. Here's the plot from EZNEC:

Image

The vertical dashed lines indicate the various Amateur Bands. Notice how the VSWR is a very low 1.1:1 on 40m, and also below 1.5:1 on 15m, but on all other bands it is over 10:1. If we now calculate how much loss we incur in 100ft of RG213 for the different feedpoint impedances, we get:

160m 20dB, 80m 11dB, 40m 0.5dB, 30m 4.4dB, 20m 7.4dB, 17m 6.9dB, 15m 1dB, 12m 5.4dB, 10m 7.5dB

Now let's introduce a 9:1 UnUn and see what happens:

Image

Notice that we have ruined the match on 40m and 15m, but we have improved the match to a greater or lesser extent on the other bands. Here are the new coax losses:

160m 20dB, 80m 5.5dB, 40m 2.2, 30m 1.5dB, 20m 1.8dB, 17m 2.8dB, 15m 2.5dB, 12m 1.8dB, 10m 1.9dB

Of course, on 40m and 15m the introduction of the UnUn has increased the coax loss - by 1.7dB and 1.5dB respectively. On the other bands it has reduced the loss by amounts varying from 2.9dB on 30m to a very significant 5.6dB on 20m and 10m. In a nutshell, introducing the UnUn has taken us from a situation where some bands were very low-loss and some were very high, to a situation where all bands now have moderate losses. Unless you had a particular interest in 40m and/or 15m work, you might think that the penalty suffered on those bands was worth the improvement gained on the other bands.

As you would expect, using a 4:1 UnUn rather than a 9:1 degrades the 40m/15m performance less, but does not improve the other bands as much.

So on balance, introducing the 9:1 UnUn appears to be a good move. However, that's not the whole story .........

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brain Hurt" level: **

The analysis so far assumes that the UnUn introduces a perfect 9:1 impedance transformation at the feedpoint. Let's see how valid that assumption might be.

A perfect impedance transformer reflects at its primary the impedance placed across its secondary, modified by the turns ratio. For that to happen, the impedance of the primary and secondary windings must be high enough that they do not significantly "shunt" the load, or the transformed load. A good rule of thumb is that the winding reactance should be at least 5 times the load impedance they are handling. So, for example, if we placed a 450 ohm load across the output terminals of our 9:1 UnUn, expecting to see 50 ohms at the primary, we have to ensure that the secondary windings have a reactance of at least 5*450=2250ohms and that the primary windings have a reactance of at least 5*50=250 ohms.

Now let's consider a typical UnUn design published on the Web; the design I have in mind specifies a T200-2 Micrometals toroidal core and recommends 14 turns as the primary winding. We can look up the data for this core and see that 100 turns on it would produce an inductance of 120uH. Knowing that the inductance varies according to the square of the number of turns on a toroid we can calculate our UnUn primary winding inductance as:

120uH*(14/100)^2 = 2.3uH

Let's suppose we now tried to use this UnUn to transform a 450ohm load down to 50ohms at a frequency of 3.5MHz. The reactance of the primary winding is:

2*Pi*f*L = 2*PI*3.5MHz*2.3uH = 50.6ohms

Instead of our required primary reactance of 250ohms we have a very low 50.6 ohms; this appears in parallel with the 50 ohms of the transformed load and will severely shunt it. Working backwards, we can say that this UnUn will only perform satisfactorily as a 450ohm/50ohm impedance transformer at frequencies above 17MHz where its primary reactance is at least 250ohms.

Out of interest I just wound 14 bifilar turns on a T200-6 core (I didn't have a T200-2) and placed a 200ohm load across the secondary. Instead of the expected 1:1 VSWR at the primary, I measured 5:1 on 160m and it didn't drop below 1.5:1 until I got above 12MHz. Type 2 material would have been better, but not much better - it's 120uH/100 turns vs 100uH/100 turns for Type 6. I then tried 10 bifilar turns on a ferrite core and got a VSWR <1.2:1 from 1.5MHz through 35MHz.

But hang on! In our application we're not placing a benign 450 ohm resistive load across the secondary of the 9:1 UnUn - it's "seeing" the widely varying feedpoint impedance of the vertical wire. For example on 20m the antenna impedance is 2651 ohms, and that requires a primary winding reactance of at least 5*2651/9=1473ohms; our UnUn manages just 2*Pi*14MHz*2.3uH=202ohms. Let's get this in perspective. We have transformed a secondary load of 2651ohms down to 294ohms at the primary, and then shunted it with 202 ohms of primary winding inductance.

The effect of this low shunt inductance is that the impedance at the input of the UnUn will be significantly different than we would expect with a perfect 9:1 transformer, particularly on the lower frequencies. That places a big question mark over the accuracy of our earlier analysis about coax losses, and therefore the perceived advantage of the UnUn. There may be some feedpoint impedances where the low shunt inductance actually reduces the VSWR on the coax; there will be others where it makes it worse. The point is that it's difficult to do the analysis when the UnUn is not behaving as a 9:1 impedance transformer.

You might think that increasing the winding inductance by increasing the number of turns would help - it would, but a new problem arises. Suppose we increase the number of turns to 40 in an attempt to get the UnUn to work well on 20m. Apart from the difficulty of winding that many trifilar turns of a reasonable wire gauge on a T200 core, we find that the wire making up the windings is now long enough that it represents a transmission line which is a significant fraction of a wavelength long. In fact it will transform our 2651ohm 20m load down to 11-j128ohms solely from transmission line action, before we ever consider the effects of the transformer.

It should be clear by now that the design of broadband transformers is non-trivial. We need plenty of inductance without many turns, and that means using a ferrite material with its much higher permeability - Type 2 or Type 6 dust-iron material is a poor choice because it cannot deliver high inductance with short winding length.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brain Hurt" level: ***

We now need to consider the power-handling capability of the UnUn. As a worked example let's calculate out what the power dissipation and temperature rise of the core will be on 80m running 100W.

EZNEC predicts the antenna feedpoint impedance at 3.5MHz as 17-j500ohms. That means we need to get a current of 2.4A into the antenna to radiate 100W, and that means we need 1211 Vrms across the secondary of the UnUn.

Peak AC flux density in the core B = (E.10^8)/(4.44*A*N*f) = (1211.10^8)/(4.44*1.3*42*3.5.10^6) = 143 Gauss

Core loss = 8.86.10^-10*f^1.14*B^2.19 = 1,342 mW/cc

According to the Amidon data, 436 mW/cc is enough to raise a T200 core temperature by 40 degrees centigrade. Their charts don't beyond this, so I leave you to imagine what 1,342 mW/cc might do!

For fun, I re-ran the calculation for 160m. The peak voltage across the UnUn secondary was 5kV and the power dissipation was 29,000 mW/cc - that's 66 times the level that Amidon's table goes up to. In that respect, Answer#5 was correct ... it should go like a bomb on 160m :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brain Hurt" level: *

So far we've ignored losses in the tuner. They vary from band to band, with and without the UnUn, but are typically less than 0.75dB except on 160m and 80m. The total losses on these bands (coax+tuner) exceed 10dB before we include the ground losses, making them marginal to say the least. So in this instance tuner losses do not argue strongly in favour of, or against, the UnUn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brain Hurt" level: *

The original Puzzle included a suggestion that an UnUn might reduce common-mode current on the feedline. It can't! It does nothing to change the common-mode impedance looking into the coax braid from the antenna feedpoint. If that common-mode path looks low impedance compared to the impedance of the radials, significant braid current will flow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:

* A 9:1 impedance transformation reduces the coax loss on a majority of the HF bands, but increases it on 40m and 15m. Unless these band are your primary interest it would probably be worthwhile including an UnUn.
* Losses on 160m and 80m, with or without an UnUn, are unacceptable.
* Type 2 or Type 6 dust-iron mix is a poor choice for a broadband 9:1 transformer core
* The T200 core size has limited power-handling when dealing with low resistance reactive loads
* An UnUn does nothing to help common-mode problems.

Is there a better way? Yes, the UnUn is very much a compromise solution. A better engineering approach is to match the antenna at the feedpoint, keeping the VSWR on the coax low on all bands and minimising losses. Of course this requires either a remote autotuner or switched fixed networks for each band. It's certainly the solution the keen contesters use; to them picking up a couple of dB is important.

Finally, please note that the loss numbers we've looked at are unique to the particular length of vertical and the length of feedline. The UnUn would show little advantage if the feedline was much shorter. We would also get a different set of figures if we considered a 43ft vertical - another popular length.

if I were in the market for one of these popular antennas I would want to know that the manufacturer/designer understood what would be the range of impedances presented by the vertical, and that they had designed the UnUn to handle the more extreme impedances at full rated power. If I saw the characteristic red colour of a small Type 2 micrometals core showing through the UnUn windings I'd be walking away ;)

Contentious perhaps, but I'd be interested to hear your views.

Steve G3TXQ

_________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;" (Lord Kelvin 1883)


Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:01 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:37 am
Posts: 10570
Location: Manchester IO83TK
Feedback: 60 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
steve, yet another cracker and very well explained.. its nce to see the swr figures and loss figures in with your explination.. a very worthwhile thread idea

for that particular antenna/unun design would an iron core be the choice or would ferrite of the correct mix be a better option as i know some people prefer ferrite over iron core..

billy

_________________
Voice is for CBers, amateur radio operators, the average citizen, and the military. In other words, voice is for everyone with a mouth. CW is for those who choose this newer mode of communication. Newer? Why yes. Voice has been around for a million years.


Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:12 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:39 pm
Posts: 6008
Location: Sleaford, Lincolnshire (Bomber County) IO93TA WAB-TF04
Feedback: 0 (0%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Thanks Steve

Certainly makes you think about the technicalities of the hobby.

Needless to say I was wrong again, but so were the rest of the 50% of the votes. :oops:

A good explanation aloso, which I shall read again when my head has stopped hurting a bit. :D

Thanks again - keep them coming - most enjoyable.

Alan

_________________
73 de Alan.

Today I broke my personal record for the most consecutive days alive, despite Covid 19 - I hope to better it again tomorrow.


Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:21 pm
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Advanced Member

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:57 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Cottingham (Hull)
Feedback: 11 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
Steve,

Thank you again for taking the time to provide us all with these puzzles, they must take you at least a couple of hours or more to prepare. They are very very interesting and an excellent learning path for me, they also provide excellent reference material for the future which we can all find on line. One day they may become famous the G3TXQ puzzle book for Hams :D

I am planning a vertical at some point but do plan to go down the autotuner root as you have mentioned.

I also mentioned I had a trick up myself with regards to the T-200 core question, the slight advantage I had here is that i had already discussed the T-200 core with yourself sometime ago on another thread !

Thank you once again for your time and effort in providing these puzzles and more importantly the detailed response.

I wonder if the forum should have a techincal section so we can all gain access to the puzzles quickly as they move down the postings ?

Cheers.


Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:36 pm
Profile Send private message

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Silent Key

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 5637
Location: Northampton IO92ME
Feedback: 1 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn
m0jha wrote:
for that particular antenna/unun design would an iron core be the choice or would ferrite of the correct mix be a better option as i know some people prefer ferrite over iron core..

Billy,

If the aim is to achieve a controlled impedance transformation over a wide bandwidth you really have to use a ferrite material; the iron powder cores have so little permeability that you can't achieve good low frequency performance without using so much wire that you run into problems at the top end of the HF range.

Even when you use ferrite cores, care has to be taken in the design. If you use a "lossy" ferrite mix you can again run into core heating problems with highly reactive loads. A good mix for this application would be Type 61 - it has plenty of permeability and is not too lossy. 10-12 trifilar turns on a single FT240-61 would probably be OK at the 100W level. If I was contemplating 400W at high duty cycle I'd probably use two FT240-61s stacked.

You also need to watch the breakdown voltage between windings - did you notice some of the voltages involved on 80m where the feedpoint impedance was highly reactive? Teflon coated wire would be advisable if you were going to run high powers on that band.

Steve G3TXQ

_________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;" (Lord Kelvin 1883)


Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:52 pm
Profile Send private message WWW

 Technical Puzzle #5 - Vertical+UnUn 
Silent Key

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 5637
Location: Northampton IO92ME
Feedback: 1 (100%)
Reply with quote
Post Re: Vertical / UNUN
G7IGB wrote:
As a follow up to my previous post Steve, I've used the slightly larger FT240 in the past but found it no better than the T200 in a tri-filar arrangement. My usual method is to wind about 16 turns on the core keeping the wires parallel at all times, but from your explanation I'm wondering if 16 is too many turns? I'm not bothered about using power levels over 100W or stacking toroids in the units which I construct, so is the T200 really such a poor choice for this lower HF bands UNUN transformer? :?

Rob,

I'm slightly confused - are we talking about core size (i.e. 200 vs 240) or are we talking about the core material (Type 2, Type 6, Type 61 etc)

Regards,
Steve G3TXQ

_________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;" (Lord Kelvin 1883)


Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:07 pm
Profile Send private message WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.