Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Type 31 baluns

To: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Type 31 baluns
From: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:59:21 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
> ## I agree, if it's  just for a 50 ohm choke balun.... just use teflon 
> coax. like RG-393/400/303... and either
> wrap it around type 43/31  cores... or  slide large diam type 43/31 beads 
> over the coax,
> and be done with it.

That's my take after reading Sevick's Fourth ed.  If it's a 1:1 choke with a 
reasonably-controlled low to moderate Z on the load side of the balun, then 
for HF, I would lean toward coax on a #31 core.

OTOH, if a 1:1 or 1:4 current balun were feeding a balanced transmission 
line from an ATU (e.g., an 80m 1/2-wave c.f. dipole operating at 7 MHz with 
a half-wave of balanced open line), then I would lean toward a bifilar 
choke, using Teflon over enameled Formvar wire.  In the latter case, the 
voltage across the load side of the balun can reach 3KV+ at 1.5KW.  No doubt 
several small diameter coaxial cables can handle it, but I would still favor 
enameled wire.  However, if I'm reading Sevick's data correctly, losses at 
30 MHz and above typically appear to be higher with a bifilar choke over 
that of a coaxial W1JR type (with or without crossover).

Paul, W9AC 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>