Baluns?
dbc254
nobody can direct you to where to buy baluns? Searched hi and lo
online, and what I found, was more expensive than buying a ready-made
dipole! I'd like to buy a balun, and attach my own cut-to-length
wire, but can't find cheap baluns ANYWHERE.
Where are you Elmers buying your baluns?
Cecil Moore
> Where are you Elmers buying your baluns?
How about balun kits from Amidon?
https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/12?page_number=2
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
John Smith
They are simply too simple to build to buy!
http://www.universal-radio.com/CATALOG/misc/amidon.html
Pick your core, grab a few feet of wire ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Oh yeah, you probably guessed ... but just in case -- we make fun of
newbies buying baluns too! (well, unun's also) 8-)
Regards,
JS
Bob
"John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g94e96$njg$1...@news.albasani.net...
John Smith
> why this two companies? Keep for yourself.
>
why you "talk" so? Speak him not me! 8-)
Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
Dave
"dbc254" <dall...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:110c0833-aa68-4266...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
you have coax? split one end, connect center conductor to one wire, shield
to the other. wind a bunch of turns (there is a web site somewhere with
numbers) around a piece of pvc pipe, and voila, instant balun. you want to
pay for off the shelf stuff, expect to pay for the ferrites that can handle
1500w all the way down to 160m, plus construction, packaging, shipping, and
marketting... that stuff is more expensive than the rest of the antenna.
want to be even cheaper? use twin lead, connect it directly to the wire and
run it down to a tuner that includes a balun... do it all in one place with
less loss.
Ralph Mowery
"Dave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:nlktk.864$UX.475@trnddc03...
>
> "dbc254" <dall...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
> news:110c0833-aa68-4266...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Everyone makes fun of newbies buying ready-built dipoles on eBay, but
>> nobody can direct you to where to buy baluns? Searched hi and lo
>> online, and what I found, was more expensive than buying a ready-made
>> dipole! I'd like to buy a balun, and attach my own cut-to-length
>> wire, but can't find cheap baluns ANYWHERE.
>>
>> Where are you Elmers buying your baluns?
>
> you have coax? split one end, connect center conductor to one wire,
> shield to the other. wind a bunch of turns (there is a web site somewhere
> with numbers) around a piece of pvc pipe, and voila, instant balun. you
> want to pay for off the shelf stuff, expect to pay for the ferrites that
> can handle 1500w all the way down to 160m, plus construction, packaging,
> shipping, and marketting... that stuff is more expensive than the rest of
> the antenna.
>
Price the 20 or 30 feet of coax to wind the balun (choke) and it may be
cheeper to buy a balun.
I don't see wasting time or money on a balun for just a simple dipole .
Sure it may make the patern vary from the normal textbook, but who cares
most of the time. Most people have to put the antenna up wherever they can
and lots of time it is not in the desired direction anyway.
NOw a beam or some other antenna design is differant.
JB
> JS
>
>
> Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
I thought as much-- Your problem is obvious.
John Smith
What?
You think yours is hidden? :-|
Ed
Every major amateur radio dealer I have bought from had baluns in their
inventory, Ham Radio Outlet and Amateur Electronic Supply, to name two.
However, you might find a wider selection from
http://www.radioworks.com
Ed K7AAT
Jeff Liebermann
<dall...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>Where are you Elmers buying your baluns?
I build my own. Some reading material:
<http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Antennas/Baluns/>
However, if you wanna stimulate the economy, there are 7 commercial
balun reviews on eHam:
<http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/1>
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
JB
"dbc254" <dall...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:110c0833-aa68-4266...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I don't bother with them. The ionosphere goofs up my pattern anyway.
Owen Duffy
4a5565...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
I think you haven't tried very hard.
No endorsement:
http://www.thewireman.com/baluns.html
The above will have components you can use to make your own... a real
learning exercise.
Owen
Sal M. Onella
"dbc254" <dall...@voicenet.com> wrote in message
news:110c0833-aa68-4266...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
My last purchase was from HRO, about $25 for a 1:1 to use with a wire
dipole. Go to www.hamradio.com, enter balun in the search box and step
through the offerings with Adobe Reader.
Many hams will recommend you try a home-made balun, multiple turns of coax
cable wound neatly around a cylindrical form. Exact requirements and
effectiveness may vary with frequency and the antenna as installed. You
might want to look at http://www.qsl.net/ta1dx/amator/broadband_baluns.htm.
(It bothered me to see the letter W used for "ohms" in two places. I didn't
spot any other errors/typos but ...)
Also: http://www.hamuniverse.com/balun.html (many pictures)
Ian White GM3SEK
>
> I don't see wasting time or money on a balun for just a simple dipole
>. Sure it may make the patern vary from the normal textbook, but who
>cares most of the time. Most people have to put the antenna up
>wherever they can and lots of time it is not in the desired direction
>anyway.
>
and "noisy bands", and operate in constant fear of causing RFI. Many of
these problems are simply due to common-mode feedline currents bringing
RF back into the shack and coupling into the mains wiring.
In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
MOST.
The problems of desperate antenna locations cannot be entirely cured,
but they *can* be improved. Almost always, feedline chokes and/or baluns
will have a valuable part to play.
>NOw a beam or some other antenna design is differant.
The largest difference is in the attitudes of the users. No matter what
your antenna is, or where you're forced to install it, it all comes down
to one simple question: do you want to give this antenna the best
possible chance to work correctly... or not?
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
Highland Ham
> cable wound neatly around a cylindrical form. Exact requirements and
> effectiveness may vary with frequency and the antenna as installed. You
> might want to look at http://www.qsl.net/ta1dx/amator/broadband_baluns.htm.
> (It bothered me to see the letter W used for "ohms" in two places. I didn't
> spot any other errors/typos but ...)
>
> Also: http://www.hamuniverse.com/balun.html (many pictures)
================
Nice URL with excellent info
tnx
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Cecil Moore
>> Also: http://www.hamuniverse.com/balun.html (many pictures)
> ================
> Nice URL with excellent info
The problem with ugly baluns is their limited frequency
ranges. In the following measurements, the choking
impedance was over 1k ohms for only small ranges of
frequencies, 19-29 MHz, 10-22 MHz, 16-25 MHz, 8-16 MHz,
5-8 MHz - frequency ranges of 2/1 or less. HF covers
a 10/1 frequency range.
http://www.k1ttt.net/technote/airbalun.html
JB
> JB wrote:
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
> >>
> >>
> >> Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
> >
> >
> > I thought as much-- Your problem is obvious.
> >
> >
>
> What?
>
> You think yours is hidden? :-|
>
Lord in prayer keep him at bay. The sun shines on the wicked and the
righteous.
Dave Platt
>cable wound neatly around a cylindrical form. Exact requirements and
>effectiveness may vary with frequency and the antenna as installed.
I saw an interesting talk at a local ham-club, at which the presenter
gave an explanation for one reason that the "effectiveness may vary"
with these sorts of choke baluns.
The common-mode impedance created by many such chokes is primarily
inductive (below the choke's self-resonant frequency, at least).
The impedance of the unwanted current path (e.g. from the antenna
feedpoint, back along the outside of the feedline, to the transceiver
chassis or to the point at which the coax is grounded) will depend on
the frequency and the length of the coax. It'll have a resistive
component (from loss resistance and from radiation resistance) and
will usually have a reactive component as well... either inductive or
capacitive.
If the feedline-path reactance is inductive or near zero, all is
well... the choke balun's inductive reactance will (if sufficiently
high) block most current flow along this path.
On the other hand, if the feedline-path reactance is capacitive, and
happens to be close in absolute value to the inductive reactance of
the choke... then you've got a series-resonant circuit. The two
reactances will largely cancel, the choke will "vanish", and you can
actually have more current flow back along the feedline than you would
without the choke.
If you change the length of the feedline, the choke's performance can
get better, or worse.
His prescription: if you want choking that's going to be effective at
a wide range of frequencies and won't be sensitive to the feedline
length, you need to use a choke which will introduce a significant
amount of resistive loss into the choked path (but not, of course,
into the differential path that feeds the antenna). The usual
solution is a ferrite.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Cecil Moore
> On the other hand, if the feedline-path reactance is capacitive, and
> happens to be close in absolute value to the inductive reactance of
> the choke... then you've got a series-resonant circuit.
This is one reason why an ugly choke only works well over
approximately a 2:1 frequency range. Below that range,
the inductive reactance is too small and above that
range, series resonance defeats the purpose.
John Smith
>> ...
> The Devil deceives many and jeers at the truth. But those who call on the
> Lord in prayer keep him at bay. The sun shines on the wicked and the
> righteous.
>
>
Is there some vending machine which dispenses such as you? Are you a
"Pod Person" that is grown from some plant from Mars and attempts to
mimic humans? Do you think you a member of the church of satan, are
insane, and this motivates you?
You are an idiot with no shame, I will grant you that ...
John Smith
> ...
> I saw an interesting talk at a local ham-club, at which the presenter
> gave an explanation for one reason that the "effectiveness may vary"
> with these sorts of choke baluns.
> ...
In 1982, when I worked for Boeing, they flew us to New York to attend
some lectures ...
Anyway, I remember one guy who gave an hour-and-a-half talk, complete
with slides, charts, models and other presentation aids on why the
bumblebee can't possibly fly ... it was totally fascinating, the data
looked absolutely real!--even though everyone (well, most) in the room
realized they were being "put on."
To anyone who has wound and used a few dozen chokes/baluns/ununs of
varying designs, I highly recommend the "Bumblebee Lecture."
Now, I am off to watch a few bumblebees crawl about ...
Regards,
JS
JIMMIE
I noticed the use of a lot of tie wraps. Its never a good idea to use
these exposed to sun light.
Jimmie
Ralph Mowery
>"JIMMIE" <JIMMIE...@yahoo.com> wrote in I >noticed the use of a lot of
>these exposed to sun light.
Most of the white tie wraps will not withstand sunlight. The black ones are
more UV ray resistant and do beter.
I sometimes use the white ones, but cover them with tape.
Scotch 33 tape.
John Smith
Here are diagrams of one type of balun which will server you well:
http://assemblywizard.fr33webhost.com/balun1.jpg
http://assemblywizard.fr33webhost.com/balun2.jpg
You will need to pick the proper material you need for the core, and
compute the turns necessary for the freqs in question (lowest freq will
determine these), there are abundant design pages on the web ... google
is your friend.
Highland Ham
> I noticed the use of a lot of tie wraps. Its never a good idea to use
> these exposed to sun light.
=============================
Black tie wraps contain carbon black and are hence UV resistant and
almost last forever.
Coloured or non pigmented plastic will indeed deteriorate due to UV
radiation.
Polypropylene rope , for example ,is usually coloured but never black.
Reason : If black it would not deteriorate due to exposure to UV ,hence
it would last far too long and the manufacturers would only need to
produce a fraction of their current production.
That's commercial life.
If you use rope other then polyester (sailing boats etc) try to find a
black plastic variety (not easy).
My 40 ft mast has (blue)polypropylene guys which need to be replaced
every 8 -9 years (even here in northern Scotland) ,but it is cheap
compared with polyester rope.
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH
JB
I will pray for you that your heart might be opened to Jesus some day. Then
with the blinders off you might truly discern the enemy and his devices.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:22
Cecil Moore
> I will pray for you that your heart might be opened to Jesus some day.
Why would people who don't believe in magic antennas
believe in magic human beings?
Tom Donaly
"John Smith" is certainly going to end up in hell, no doubt about that.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Tom Donaly
> JB wrote:
>> I will pray for you that your heart might be opened to Jesus some day.
>
> Why would people who don't believe in magic antennas
> believe in magic human beings?
Maybe it's because magic is a lot easier to understand than quantum
electrodynamics.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
John Smith
>> ...
>> Regards,
>> JS
>> Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
>
> I will pray for you that your heart might be opened to Jesus some day. Then
> with the blinders off you might truly discern the enemy and his devices.
>
> "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
> cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
> brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
> Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:22
>
>
Hey, I think I remember the movie you are quoting; It was by Stephen
King, wasn't it? :-|
John Smith
> ...
> "John Smith" is certainly going to end up in hell, no doubt about that.
> 73,
> Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Krist, I thought I was already there!
That is certainly bad news ... :-(
John Smith
> ...
> Hey, I think I remember the movie you are quoting; It was by Stephen
> King, wasn't it? :-|
>
> Regards,
> JS
> Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
I probably should make that point a bit "more clear."
A race of aliens a mere few hundred years ahead of us would be difficult
for us to discern from Gods.
A race 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years,
100,000,000 years would probably, most likely, be GOD!
JIMMIE
wrote:
Sorry I should have said "white tie wraps as shown on the website".
Black tie wraps dont last forever, they still get brittle and break
just from being in the sun. I wouldnt use them either unless they got
regular inspections. I tie wrapped coax to an antenna mast down in
Florida about 5 years ago and they are breaking. No doubt they would
last a lot longer in Scotland.
Jimmie
Sal M. Onella
"JB" <nos...@goofball.net> wrote in message news:5%Ztk.29$Af3.22@trnddc06...
whosoever shall say,
> Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mathew 5:22
Verily, he who sits upon a hot iron shall be branded in the end.
-- Alfred
E. Newman
JB
"Sal M. Onella" <salmo...@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:mK5uk.1842$Fm6...@newsfe02.iad...
JB
> John Smith wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Hey, I think I remember the movie you are quoting; It was by Stephen
> > King, wasn't it? :-|
> >
> > Regards,
> > JS
> > Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
>
> I probably should make that point a bit "more clear."
>
> A race of aliens a mere few hundred years ahead of us would be difficult
> for us to discern from Gods.
>
fantasy construct.
The would likely be assassinated in the Media.
John Smith
>> ...
> When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is a
> fantasy construct.
> The would likely be assassinated in the Media.
>
>
Well, I have never met "a new energy source" either. Does this mean I
can now dismiss all possibilities and go out into the world preaching
that all sources of energy have now been discovered and we are doomed?
Funny, where I come from, logic just doesn't work like that ...
Cecil Moore
> When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is a
> fantasy construct.
Couldn't the same thing be said about God?
JB
> can now dismiss all possibilities and go out into the world preaching
> that all sources of energy have now been discovered and we are doomed?
>
> Funny, where I come from, logic just doesn't work like that ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
> Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!
At least you are able to wrestle with your own logic.
John Smith
>> ...
> When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is a
> fantasy construct.
> The would likely be assassinated in the Media.
>
>
Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion of
evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.
It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe in:
1) A thinking mind created "all."
2) ALL spontaneously came into being.
The first requires a belief in God.
The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
"machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements in
the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space composed of
"absolute nothing."
On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
possibility of either.
However, it is obvious one is correct ...
Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
possibility--well, that is simply insanity!
Occams' Razor is clear on which would be chosen ... the aliens, at least
for the short term explanation ...
JB
> can now dismiss all possibilities and go out into the world preaching
> that all sources of energy have now been discovered and we are doomed?
>
> Funny, where I come from, logic just doesn't work like that ...
Just because God knows how everything will turn out, doesn't mean our
choises are of no value.
I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but since the subject is
changed again:
I would like to see a new energy source. I have some doubt I will find it
on YouTube, but those chances are greater than if I built it out of my junk
box. Such things will likely come at great expense. My solar experiments
only account for a small percentage of my electric usage but I have managed
to cut my gas bill drastically. Some could argue it is the oldest energy
source out there. Everyday we are bombarded by a whole lot of energy that
just heats up the roof. I have cut my bill by simply putting to use the
energy that would have only heated up my roof or my South side.
The point is we should all be thinking about such things rather than
expecting some government "fall guy" to fix it for us by digging deeper into
our pockets for "party money". What we have when we foist our
responsibilities on the government, are big screwups by people who are too
removed from the problem to have a hope to fix anything by throwing money on
scam artists. The Castro government comes to mind as a perfect example.
Just throw money at the government and it becomes fat, and lazy and a burden
to those who see a need and fulfill it. The job of a President should be to
inspire rather than shoulder incessant ridicule that cripples our nation's
credibility in the world. Those who ridicule should stop and provide some
useful input or shoulder responsibility themselves rather than hoping for
disaster to vindicate their bad attitude.
If we ever do find a race of aliens, I would hope we would hear from them by
radio first. There is no reason to think there couldn't be, but if they
were close enough for it to matter, we should have heard from them by now.
Unless they consider on-off keying (or radio in general) to be obsolete,
beneath them, and hate everyone who uses it because they won't waste their
time learning it, then look out.
Since our subject is still baluns, I have used Fiberglass tape on Torroids
and solenoid windings because they heat up. Other things deteriorate. I
use that because I have some. I couldn't tell anyone what would be best in
the long run for UV. It is a big problem. Heat means loss. I prefer to do
away with the need for baluns and other elements that don't contribute to
radiating the energy.
John Smith
> ...
> Since our subject is still baluns, I have used Fiberglass tape on Torroids
> and solenoid windings because they heat up. Other things deteriorate. I
> use that because I have some. I couldn't tell anyone what would be best in
> the long run for UV. It is a big problem. Heat means loss. I prefer to do
> away with the need for baluns and other elements that don't contribute to
> radiating the energy.
>
>
Go to a larger core, stack large cores to lower power density per cubic
centimeter of core material--adjust core material to compensate for
increased inductance, etc.
Proper functioning of the balun hinges on proper design/material, of
course ...
Now is one is designing an electric heater, ni-chrome wire might be
implemented in the design--perhaps a "ceramic tape", etc. ... 8-)
JB
> JB wrote:
>
> >> ...
> > When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is
a
> > fantasy construct.
A little dry humor
Fantasy isn't harmfull unless we base conclusions on it.
> >
> >
>
> Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion of
> evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.
Wrong. You are correct though in characterizing evolution as a religion.
Evolution theory functions as centerpiece of some wonder, but there are
glaring problems: No evidence of missing links in the face of Tons of
fossil evidence of a great variety of unique species (notwithstanding
sub-species that are obviously related). Evidence suggest that species
would have had to spontaneously come into being en masse from extreme
outbreaks of very specific mutation. Creation would make more sense than
that because mutation overwhelmingly is a deterioration resulting in a loss
of viability. Additionally, Life even in what we would consider simple
one-celled organisms are in fact highly organized and cooperative
communities of seemingly intelligently flexible or single purpose
mechanisms. None of which would survive without the viability of the whole
organism. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither could have
been viable or accidentally come into being on their own. Then where are
the fossils of the supposed transitional species. We know there is some
flexibility within the species for adaptation, but new species are a great
leap over a nonexistent bridge. The evolution theory was actually based only
on observations and wrong conclusions and even Darwin thought to abandon it.
It might not have survived to this day if it were not commandeered for it's
political value to justify revolution, genocide and a notion that in order
for an idea to be viable, all others must be destroyed. The notion that
apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures. Today
we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting sprees
and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
>
> It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe in:
>
> 1) A thinking mind created "all."
>
> 2) ALL spontaneously came into being.
>
> The first requires a belief in God.
>
> The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
> "machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements in
> the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space composed of
> "absolute nothing."
OK, essentially GOD or No GOD.
>
> On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
> possibility of either.
>
> However, it is obvious one is correct ...
It is obvious that life operates with great intelligence despite our
conscous will, so we have that much proof of intelligence although not much
of it comes to our awareness with that much regularity.
>
> Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
> being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
> someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
> possibility--well, that is simply insanity!
>
> Occams' Razor is clear on which would be chosen ... the aliens, at least
> for the short term explanation ...
So Aliens created the universe? Occam's Razor is only an expedient. It
only works for simplicity's sake and calls us to make assumptions where our
understanding fails. The scientific mind would ponder and record the
evidence allowing for lack of understanding rather than summarily executing
God, or constructing explanations simply to deny God. All too often I see
experiments that are discredited because the results cannot be
satisfactorily explained by the answer sought. A belief in God should not
be such a problem for those who don't believe unless their wicked nature
makes it so.
JB
"Cecil Moore" <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote in message
news:IRcuk.5313$zv7....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> JB wrote:
> > When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your statement is
a
> > fantasy construct.
>
> Couldn't the same thing be said about God?
Then couldn't the same be said of all recorded history
where the witnesses can no longer be cross-examined, ruined, executed?
I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
other reason. Also that witnesses may not have fully understood all they
heard or saw, but reported because it was noteworthy. This also lends to
credibility, because those with a hidden agenda usually restrain themselves
from presenting testimony that doesn't contribute to their argument.
There is more evidence to support much of what is recorded in the Bible,
than required to convict someone of Murder. I would suggest a book by Lee
Strobel, "The Case for Christ" as a method to ordering and initiating their
own logical investigation. In the end you will have to be open to the Holy
Spirit before anything can come of it. Salvation comes by invitation only.
My own conclusions came when I realized the teachings of Christ were the
only hope of saving the human race from it's own self-destruction. Further,
that it could succeed against the odds.
Richard Clark
>I more subscribe to the theory that witnesses who died defending their own
>observation, are more compelling than those who would have written for any
>other reason.
This would be profound, if it weren't coming from an "anonymous"
source replying in other side threads to an "anonymous" source.
Two such "anonymous" sources in a series of dialog is very much less
than compelling and lacks all reason.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
JB
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:clajb4pr6kb5ar80j...@4ax.com...
I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
set to dump all mail because of that.
The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.
BTW Gustav is picking up strength
Tom Donaly
Hi Richard,
Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
participants.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Richard Clark
>I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
>seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
>set to dump all mail because of that.
I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.
Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
proportion.
>The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.
In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.
Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.
John Smith
> ...
> I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
> seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login is
> set to dump all mail because of that.
>
> The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.
>
> BTW Gustav is picking up strength
>
>
You will have to forgive Richard and allow for his limitations ...
without a personality to attack, he is like a fish out of water.
Unable to form properly formatted text to argue text on its' merits
alone, you will frequently encounter these "dead ends" in exchanges with
him ... undoubtedly, you will learn to adapt.
John Smith
> ...
> Hi Richard,
> Both sources need the tinfoil changed on their respective
> hats. They also need to find a newsgroup where they can discuss popular
> theology without danger of being withered by ridicule from the other
> participants.
> 73,
> Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
TRANSLATION FOR THE MASSES:
Discuss what Tom wishes to discuss, within the scope and boundaries Tom
specifies or else risk subscription to his "Chit List!"
This ain't no hobby group! Yanno? Here we subscribe to the "arrl
Professionals Standards!" :-P
dfi...@nc.rr.com
back-RFI to my transceiver in the regular frequency ranges. I think
that by chosing 1Kohm that may be a bit conservative. In (old)
engineering school, we tended to use an order of magnitude (X10) as
our highly arbitrary :) cut-off point for impedances that have a
significant effect. You are doing that too but by using 1000 ohms, you
are using (X10 times 2) as your arbitrary cutoff point. Since the
filter is an exponential curve, if you chose 500 ohms instead of 1000
ohms, you might even get a 4 or 5 to 1 frequency range. In my case I
use two different turns chokes so that is why I think I am covered
pretty well. Your information is very interesting; good to see people
are actually measuring things!
On Aug 28, 8:45 am, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote:
> Highland Ham wrote:
> >> Also: http://www.hamuniverse.com/balun.html (many pictures)
> > ================
> > Nice URL with excellent info
>
> The problem with ugly baluns is their limited frequency
> ranges. In the following measurements, the choking
> impedance was over 1k ohms for only small ranges of
> frequencies, 19-29 MHz, 10-22 MHz, 16-25 MHz, 8-16 MHz,
> 5-8 MHz - frequency ranges of 2/1 or less. HF covers
> a 10/1 frequency range.
>
> http://www.k1ttt.net/technote/airbalun.html
dfi...@nc.rr.com
same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains. A
balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
we wany NO reduction in RF current flow. I agree that the effect is
the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
there for a different reason.
Dan
On Aug 28, 2:26 am, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
> ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
> MOST.
JOHN PASSANEAU
The way I heard that was, He who sits upon a hot iron shall rise again..
John W3JXP
Mike Coslo
>
> "John Smith" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g9bmg9$a8c$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> JB wrote:
>>
>> >> ...
>> > When have you ever met a race of aliens? None? Then your
>> > statement is
> a
>> > fantasy construct.
>> > The[y] would likely be assassinated in the Media.
> A little dry humor
> Fantasy isn't harmfull unless we base conclusions on it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Believe me, I have already intuited that you believe in the "religion
>> of evolution", as opposed to a religion believing in a God.
>
> Wrong. You are correct though in characterizing evolution as a
> religion.
Oh joy, another "Evolution is a religion" person.
> Evolution theory functions as centerpiece of some wonder, but there
> are glaring problems: No evidence of missing links in the face of
> Tons of fossil evidence of a great variety of unique species
> (notwithstanding sub-species that are obviously related).
Where do you get this from, some textbook from the late 1800's?
There is so much evidence of linkage today that your statement is 100
percent incorrect.
> Evidence
> suggest that species would have had to spontaneously come into being
> en masse from extreme outbreaks of very specific mutation.
Citations please?
> Creation
> would make more sense than that because mutation overwhelmingly is a
> deterioration resulting in a loss of viability.
While "mutation" can often be detrimental, we have to determine if you
define mutations as genetic variability. Is a person who is efficent at
storing fat a mutation as compared to one with a fast metabolism? Natural
selection selects for that efficient person in times of little food.
> Additionally, Life
> even in what we would consider simple one-celled organisms are in fact
> highly organized and cooperative communities of seemingly
> intelligently flexible or single purpose mechanisms.
Check out Lipid cells - they are a significant step in self organizing
structures.
> None of which
> would survive without the viability of the whole organism.
Organisms that have become more complex do depend on that complexity.
> So which
> came first, the chicken or the egg?
Now this is the zenith of science!
At any given time since "chickens have come into existance, they just lay
eggs, and more chickens come about. If there was some way to pinpointa
pre-chicke, the egg would be the first part. The pre-chicken hatches the
first chicken. But it doesn't work that way.
> Neither could have been viable or
> accidentally come into being on their own.
That is the supposition of the answer.
> Then where are the fossils
> of the supposed transitional species. We know there is some
> flexibility within the species for adaptation, but new species are a
> great leap over a nonexistent bridge.
So, are you saying that every possible fossil has been discovered?
Where did all those animals go anyhow, and why are not modern men's
fossils in the earliest stratum?
> The evolution theory was
> actually based only on observations and wrong conclusions and even
> Darwin thought to abandon it. It might not have survived to this day
> if it were not commandeered for it's political value to justify
> revolution, genocide and a notion that in order for an idea to be
> viable, all others must be destroyed.
Citations please?
> The notion that apes
> transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
> from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures.
Wrong. Humans did not descend from apes. We did not evolve from apes.
It is exceptionally difficult to make a rational argument when the same
old LIE is repeated over and over again.
> Today we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on
> shooting sprees and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me
> about evolution.
Are you serious? Quite the non-sequitar.
>> It is obvious, at this point, one has only two religions to believe
>> in:
>>
>> 1) A thinking mind created "all."
>>
>> 2) ALL spontaneously came into being.
>>
>> The first requires a belief in God.
>>
>> The second requires a belief that living organisms (or, biological
>> "machines") can spontaneously come into being, and that the elements
>> in the universe can spontaneously come into being from a space
>> composed of "absolute nothing."
>
> OK, essentially GOD or No GOD.
If you are serious about this, you are listening to the wrong people.
There is no reason that a god could not create a universe in which every
singel evolutionary concept would appear as we have seen. This god could
also create every being as wildly different in structure, different
cellular metabolism, or even more effective, create everything as sacs of
goo with no perceptable means of "living" but living none the less.
>> On close examination, an intelligent would most likely deny the
>> possibility of either.
>>
>> However, it is obvious one is correct ...
Wrong. There is the third possibility that something created the universe
and the life in it, and allowed it to go it's way. If it eveloved fine,
if not, fine.
> It is obvious that life operates with great intelligence despite our
> conscous will, so we have that much proof of intelligence although not
> much of it comes to our awareness with that much regularity.
>>
>> Why any one individual would choose one over the other, with no proof
>> being available, is simply a function of human nature ... then, for
>> someone having chosen one over the other, to ridicule the other
>> possibility--well, that is simply insanity!
Different folks have a different definition of insanity. You have so many
wrong suppositions in your beliefs, such as evolution as the beginning
of life - it makes no such claims. The no transitional forms - there are
plenty, and more showing up all the time. The idea of irreducable
complexity as you point out in your earlier cellular part. Many of the
things that are presumably too complex, such as the human eye, can be
shown to have many present day light sensing processes that run the gamut
from simple sensing, to rudimentary lenses, to the human eye, to those of
raptors.
To qoute oft repeated and very wrong precepts is disingenuous at best. In
extreme cases, it starts to look as if a person is "lying for God". And
he doesn't like that!
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
John Smith
>> ... The notion that
> apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
> from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures. Today
> we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting sprees
> and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
of life.
First there is a prototype, then improved designs, and at some point in
the future, or far-far-future, a finished design (maybe.)
We are all looking at the same "evidence" alright, the crux of the
matter is in the interpretation(s.)
JB
> JB wrote:
> >> ... The notion that
> > apes transitioned into humans is more farfetched than if we were evolved
> > from ferns or fruit flies, if we were to compare the DNA structures.
Today
> > we have youth wearing "natural selection" T-shirts going on shooting
sprees
> > and random gang killings for tatoos so don't tell me about evolution.
> >> ...
>
> If one were to tear apart a mud hut, and then a state-of-the-art
> building, he/she would only find the basic building blocks are more
> similar then dissimilar ... most likely, 99%+ of the elements in the
> state of the art building can also be found in the mud-hut ... I see no
> reason why someone should expect different in the basic building blocks
> of life.
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.
Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.
Now consider that all members/parts/factories/roads/power/lights/political
parties in the system have to work together and if one part is out of place
the system crashes and the organism never happens.
Here is another puzzlement. It seems that the difference between Man and
Woman are that one end of the structure is slightly goofed so that between
the woman and man several traits are either activated or not. Other than
that they are the same structure. But how can you say that one is evolved
differently from the other?!? With out the difference, the species would
never have been so it could have nothing to do with evolution, leading one
to expect a spontaneous event {*POP*} where both could continue as one flesh
so to speak as there would never have been time for an evolutionary change
to allow them both to evolve into a viable species.
Consider this: One translation says "You formed me even in the womb from
the lower parts of the earth" Or to that effect. could the translation as
easily be designed and programmed elementally in the womb. Certainly fits
what is actually happening, but what does a sheppard boy know of DNA?
John Smith
> ...
> Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
> about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
> difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
> viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
> much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
> evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.
>
Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...
> Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
> machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
> self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
> what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
> self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
> parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
> rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
> any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
> the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
> are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
> a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
> needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
> fight each other.
>
A toy serves a different purpose than a diesel truck. Those purposes
cannot be confused with what they are built from--a dung beetle is
constructed for a different purpose than a human ...
>> ...
You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...
JB
> JB wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're
talking
> > about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings.
Vast
> > difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
> > viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but
stay
> > much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
> > evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.
> >
>
> Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
> you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
> oranges ...
>
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
The only thing
in common with various different species are proteins, and they aren't
even life. I contend that the complexities involved are too astronomical to
be accidental because outside of minor adaptability that are wired for,
changes from one species to another couldn't happen one step at a time, it
would be just as probable if male and female of a species popped out ready
made. You cant make a semi out of a VW bug without recycling and
redesigning it from the ground up.
> You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
> for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
> educate you in the differences ...
There is no place for rational debate on this subject (and many others) in
most colleges. It conflicts with the agenda to promote Globalism, Marxism
and
homosexuality, and especially the denial of God, national unity, or any
authority above the Global Socialist state. Karl Marx was a seminary
student when he stumbled onto Darwin's book. After reading it, he lost his
faith and went to formulate his own theories of life and revolution. Hitler
also read Darwin's book and made references to it in Mein Kamph and other
works to justify ridding the world of "inferior species" in order to promote
evolution. Darwin became an Atheist because he couldn't bear the thought of
his Father going to Hell for committing suicide and sought to promote
Atheism. Interesting to note, several of his children had birth defects.
I present this in the context that Darwin promoted:
1. That all life on the planet evolved from mud and through slow evolution,
2. All species evolved from a single celled organism that evolved
spontaneously from mixtures of "primordial ooze" and inevitably,
3. There is no god, no purpose in life but to be killed and eaten
by another organism.
In fact, there is no more proof of those ideas, than of the idea that a
great
number of species spontaneously emerged over a short time and make
environmental changes within the limitations of the DNA and viability.
However, since there is no research money for God, the Darwin theory
persists because the alternative is unthinkable.
Ian Jackson
<assembl...@gmail.com> writes
John,
You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
correct it.
--
Ian
Richard Clark
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>John,
>You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
>presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
>correct it.
Hi Ian,
Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
dialog of obscene pandering.
Ian White GM3SEK
>On Aug 28, 2:26 am, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
>> ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
>> MOST.
>Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
>same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
>device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
>away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.
That is too far narrow a definition of a "common mode choke",
especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.
>A
>balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
>line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
>transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
>we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.
What exactly do you mean by that?
And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
feedline?
>I agree that the effect is
>the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
>less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
>there for a different reason.
Not in my station. My motivation for using common-mode chokes is
*specifically* to control any incoming and outgoing interference that
may be caused by common-mode currents on the feedline.
When the common-mode component of the feedline is reduced, it will also
be accompanied by an improvement in "balance" on the antenna, because
the two things go together (or at least, they do for some definitions of
that word). But "balance" is never my primary goal because I don't find
the concept helpful, either when deciding what to do next or when
evaluating the results.
--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
John Smith
> John,
> You have a typo in the slogan after your 'signature'. [At least, I
> presume it's a typo.] It's annoying me intensely. Please would you
> correct it.
Ian:
How about just disabling it, that was really enough of that anyway ... ;-)
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
> I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
> and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
> you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
> use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
>> ...
Iron is iron, whether in a pure form, alloys, rust or other ferric
compounds. Silicon is silicon, whether in a window pane, silicon oxide,
or some other compound of silicon. Calcium is calcium, whether in
limestone, cement, earth, or other calcium compounds, etc., etc. ...
Back when I was in college, someone did some computations of how the
body of Plato would have decayed and been dispersed throughout the world
in the thousands of years since his death. They arrived at the
conclusion that everyone on the planet would have at least 6 molecules
from Platos' body in their own bodies (mostly water molecules since that
is the major component of the human body) ... I cannot verify the
accuracy of those computations--however, you get the drift--I am part
Plato! <grin>
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Hi Ian,
>
> Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
> tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
> dialog of obscene pandering.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Has someone snuck into this forum and now lies under the bleachers
bellowing for help? I thought I heard some inane and insane rantings
from an individual out of his mind with pain!
Reminds me of that poor b*st*ard which used to go around mumbling quotes
from Shakespeare in reply to technical discussions ... at least he is
gone for the moment, or so it might seem. :-)
Regards,
JS
Ian Jackson
<assembl...@gmail.com> writes
No, I like the sentiment expressed. It's just the typo that is getting
to me!!!
--
Ian
John Smith
> ...
> Hi Ian,
>
> Are you referring to the minstrel baiting term? It's bad enough to
> tolerate this anonymous carnival of religious cliches with their
> dialog of obscene pandering.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Hmmm, playing, "I am taking the high road game, huh?
Ok. Well, here is my favorite version:
Fee-fi-fo-fum
I smell the blood of an Englishman.
Be he alive or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread. -- "Jack the Giant Killer."
Now, one sure to be your fav:
"Child Roland to the dark tower came,
His word was still, Fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man." -- Shakespeare, "King Lear."
And, for those finding neither to their liking:
"O, tis a precious apothegmatical Pedant, who will find matter enough to
dilate a whole day of the first invention of Fy, fa, fum, I smell the
blood of an English-man". -- Thomas Nashe, "Have with you to
Saffron-walden."
Ahhh, remember the good-ole-days when you could write this
gooble-de-gook for yourself? A burden which has now befell my
shoulders--I only thank God they are broad (my shoulders of course, not
the women!) :-(
However, Shakespeare does seem to befit some as more appropiate
"trolling lines" than myself ...
Regards,
JS
dfi...@nc.rr.com
> Dan wrote:
> >On Aug 28, 2:26 am, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
> >> ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
> >> MOST.
> >Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
> >same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
> >device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
> >away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.
>
> That is too far narrow a definition of a "common mode choke",
> especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
> to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.
A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
serves a filtering purpose,
not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
resistor etc..
>
> >A
> >balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
> >line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
> >transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
> >we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.
>
> What exactly do you mean by that?
You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
settle for the best
you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.
>
> And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
> feedline?
For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
of phase with each other. Same with I. One conductor is +90 degrees
and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth. At any given
instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
each other is equal to the magnitude it would be on the inner
conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
with I.
>
> >I agree that the effect is
> >the same, semantically, ie one side effect of the use of a balun is
> >less CM interference from coming down a balanced feedline but it is
> >there for a different reason.
>
> Not in my station. My motivation for using common-mode chokes is
> *specifically* to control any incoming and outgoing interference that
> may be caused by common-mode currents on the feedline.
Of course. But it is not due to filtering unwanted RF, it is due to
the conversion of balancing your energy so
that the coax properly acts as a shielded unbalanced line with no
energy in the shield and all energy in the inner conductor
(assuming perfect conditions). Your dipole will try to balance when
fed as a dipole directly from a coax.. Without the balun, any
reflected energy will
partially come down the shield to ground causing interference. The
balun simply unbalances the reflected energy, if any, to that it all
returns through
the inner conductor eliminating RFI if the radio and the shield are
properly earthed.
>
> When the common-mode component of the feedline is reduced, it will also
> be accompanied by an improvement in "balance" on the antenna, because
> the two things go together (or at least, they do for some definitions of
> that word).
But think of your dipole as a balanced transmission line. That's what
it is, with a lot of loss (into radiation resistance).
You WANT common mode on THAT that lossy transmission line and you do
not want it filtered away.
But "balance" is never my primary goal because I don't find
> the concept helpful, either when deciding what to do next or when
> evaluating the results.
I say "balanced" is your primary goal though you do not realize it.
You want to balance the energy propagation in your dipole "lossy
transmission line", when feeding it with an unbalanced coax. The balun
should accomplish that. Anything reflected is not good but at least it
is reflected "unbalanced" inside the grounded shield causing less EMI.
Owen Duffy
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
> same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
I suggest that a reasonable definition of a balun is any device that
facilitates or assists transition from unbalanced to balanced mode of
operation. That definition permits a wide range of devices that may have
characteristics suited to specific applications.
(Keeping in mind that an unbalanced feedline is often not ideal in
application, ie one where common mode current is exactly half of the
differential current, and a two wire open line is often not ideal in
application, ie where common mode current is zero.)
Most people naturally think of balance in terms of voltages wrt some common
reference, eg ground. It is equally legitimate, and often more appropriate
to the antenna / feedline scenario, to seek balance in terms of current, ie
to minimise common mode current.
Owen
Ian White GM3SEK
>On Aug 31, 3:07 pm, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>> >On Aug 28, 2:26 am, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
>> >> ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
>> >> MOST.
>> >Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
>> >same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
>> >device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
>> >away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.
>>
>> That is too far narrow a definition of a "common mode choke",
>> especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
>> to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.
>
>A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
>serves a filtering purpose,
>not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
>versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
>unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
>resistor etc..
>
Common-mode chokes, and filters in general, do NOT aim to "turn unwanted
RF into heat"! That is a total misunderstanding of the whole concept.
An ideal common-mode choke would dissipate zero heat energy, and a
successful real-life choke will dissipate only a tiny fraction of the
available RF power.
When you insert a common-mode choke, you are inserting a large impedance
into the pathway of the common-mode current. The RF current
distribution throughout the entire antenna/feedline/ground system will
adjust to take account of this new impedance. As a result, most of the
common-mode current will be DIVERTED away from its former pathway, and
will flow instead in the antenna.
The details are complicated, but the concept that the choke DIVERTS
common-mode current away from the feedline is reasonably accurate. (By
contrast, the concept that it "turns unwanted RF current into heat" is
just plain wrong.)
If the choke is doing its job, the new value of common-mode current
(I_cm) flowing through the choke will be much less than the previous
value. The power dissipation in the choke will then be (I_cm)-squared x
R, where R is the resistive part of the choke's impedance at that
frequency. Note that I_cm is the small amount of common-mode current
that remains *after* having inserted the choke - not the value before!
The practical outcome is that a higher choke impedance will give *lower*
heat dissipation in the choke itself.
If a common-mode choke is getting hot, it isn't working. Unfortunately
there are many chokes that don't have a high enough impedance to handle
the full range of real-life situations. If a choke is not able to
suppress the common-mode current to a low enough value, then in some
situations it will get hot [1, 2]. But PLEASE don't imagine that is
how common-mode chokes are intended to work!
[1] http://www.w8ji.com/Baluns/balun_test.htm
[2] http://audiosystemsgroup.com/NCDXACoaxChokesPPT.pdf
Also see other pages and publications from the same authors.
>>
>> >A
>> >balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
>> >line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
>> >transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
>> >we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean by that?
>
>You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
>do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
>settle for the best
>you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
>back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
>should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
>reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
>but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
>the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
>energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.
>
Sorry, but that is so confused I can't even begin to unpick it... except
by pointing to "you try to filter and dissipate unwanted back-RF". In so
many different ways, that is NOT what we're trying to do. Tug on that
loose strand, and the whole thing unravels.
>>
>> And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
>> feedline?
>
>For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
>of phase with each other. Same with I.
Yes.
>One conductor is +90 degrees
>and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth.
No. Earth and 90 degrees don't come into this at all.
>At any given
>instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
>each other is equal to the magnitude it would be on the inner
>conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
>Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
>equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
>with I.
>
Yes... but this definition of "balanced" also REQUIRES that the
common-mode current is zero. The two are locked together, so if
"balance" is your aim, the practical way to achieve it is to force the
common-mode current to a lower value.
We have some direct leverage on common-mode current, because it's a
real, measurable thing. But "balance" is only a concept, and there isn't
any *direct* leverage that we can apply to it.
So even though a "common-mode choke" and a "current balun" are two
different names for the same physical device, it does make a difference
which name you choose. Think "common-mode choke", and you can see the
levers that will make your antenna/feedline system perform the way you
want it to. Think "balun", and all you see is a label that covers those
levers up.
[...]
>But think of your dipole as a balanced transmission line. That's what
>it is, with a lot of loss (into radiation resistance).
>You WANT common mode on THAT that lossy transmission line and you do
>not want it filtered away.
>
Again, that is all so misconceived - at every turn, it clashes with
obvious, measurable physical reality; or else it contradicts itself.
I'm sorry, but you really do need to do a clean wipe and start again
with a good textbook.
JB
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hX36O$OVOyu...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
So who makes up the slogans for the dems? Is it some kind of secret code?
Except for the fact that they hold peoples jobs and freedoms with an iron
fist and treat us all like school children, the candidates don't seem to do
anything of merit. Is it really all about blaming the other guy about what
your people are getting away with under their watch?
John Smith
> ...
> So who makes up the slogans for the dems? Is it some kind of secret code?
> Except for the fact that they hold peoples jobs and freedoms with an iron
> fist and treat us all like school children, the candidates don't seem to do
> anything of merit. Is it really all about blaming the other guy about what
> your people are getting away with under their watch?
>
>
Do you really think the "men" behind the curtain(s) pulling the puppets
strings are from different groups? i.e., Republicrats vs. Democans.
Fat chance; Me thinks the game is fixed. However, the "Laws of
Illusion(s)" dictates it is only that which is perceived which counts ...
Regards,
JS
JB
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:akejb4dvgqrujdjo0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:03:45 GMT, "JB" <nos...@goofball.net> wrote:
>
> >I simply prefer not to attract tons of V-agra spam. These newsgroups are
> >seriously mined and my actual e-mail address associated with this login
is
> >set to dump all mail because of that.
>
> I have transmited in the clear here for the past 13 years.
>
> Since May, I have received all of 2 spams - from the son of Charles
> Taylor in Africa. The amount of spam that predated that is of like
> proportion.
I've heard the same arguments from kids who do drugs or refuse to wear seat
belts.
"It won't happen to me". I wouldn't want to lose my e-mail account or my
callsign to a spoof binge.
>
> >The truth speaks for itself. You can come up with any excuse to deny it.
>
> In those same 13 years I've often heard the same excuse you are using.
>
> Anyone who is willing to quote the Bible, but refusing to testify is
> obviously of little faith - a Xerox can do as much and "anonymous"
> sources lean on that copy button freely without conviction.
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
What do you want? A new book of the Bible? How's this for testimony -
I must be a thorn in the side of the devil or he wouldn't have been trying
to take me and my dad out all our lives. The Lord has delivered me over and
over and even set a table before me in front of my enemies. My dad now
rests in Jesus. My rest is yet to come. Maybe if I was a poet or a
songwriter I could add to the Psalms but I leave that to others with that
gift.
Richard Clark
> How's this for testimony
It isn't.
JB
I have often considered the Good Cop Bad Cop theory of the Rep - Dem scam on
the people. The fact that they go to the same parties and get-togethers
means they share the same thoughts. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy
per-se. Think of it as one big party that everyone has to go to or be left
out, and even though everyone goes kissy-kissy, they are knifing in the
back. Distrust and polite smack is all around. Rather than conspiracy
though, there is convergence in thought on matters brought to light to be
wrestled over while more important matters are forgotten for the moment. We
the People get left behind.
Who do you vote for though... Obama has been hanging around the Rev. kill
whitey bunch for too long. No telling what disease he might have picked up.
There also seems to be some overcompensation, the way he so desperately
needs to validate himself with every group that he forgets who he is from
day to day. By the same token, what damage was done to McCain while being
thrashed in the POW camp. But he does seem to have tolerance and compassion
even though he sticks to his guns.
The fact we are narrowed to two parties smacks of some kind of collusion.
Especially in the light of certain travesties of the Dems that the Reps are
curiously silent on. Perhaps McCain is so attractive due to the fact he has
proven to be less of a party lapdog.
JB
Oh it's you again. You don't seem to do much other than poke the fire.
dfi...@nc.rr.com
> Dan wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 3:07 pm, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Dan wrote:
> >> >On Aug 28, 2:26 am, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3...@ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, people with limited antenna opportunities are often the
> >> >> ones who need a balun - or more accurately, a common-mode choke - the
> >> >> MOST.
> >> >Technically I would have to disagree with calling even a 1:1 balun the
> >> >same thing as a common mode choke. A CM choke is an EMI prevention
> >> >device intended to filter out RF components generated in a circuit,
> >> >away from the feed of a power source, usually an electrical mains.
>
> >> That is too far narrow a definition of a "common mode choke",
> >> especially the reference to electrical mains. The term is widely applied
> >> to transmission line for both digital data and analog RF signals.
>
> >A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
> >serves a filtering purpose,
> >not a conversion of unbalanced to balanced energy transfer or vice
> >versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
> >unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
> >resistor etc..
>
> Common-mode chokes, and filters in general, do NOT aim to "turn unwanted
> RF into heat"! That is a total misunderstanding of the whole concept.
A CM choke aims to present a high impedence to unintentional RF. Once
"choked" by the high impedance,
the enrgey must either reflect or be aborbed somewhere in the circuit
or the core as real power. What is it that you cannot
understand about the term "choke"?
>
> An ideal common-mode choke would dissipate zero heat energy, and a
> successful real-life choke will dissipate only a tiny fraction of the
> available RF power.
CM choke is a filter, not an energy transfer device. Do you have any
formal education in electrical engineering?
>
> When you insert a common-mode choke, you are inserting a large impedance
> into the pathway of the common-mode current. The RF current
> distribution throughout the entire antenna/feedline/ground system will
> adjust to take account of this new impedance. As a result, most of the
> common-mode current will be DIVERTED away from its former pathway, and
> will flow instead in the antenna.
Whew. You sort of describe a balun except that the balun is an
impedance matching device, in this discussion 1:1.
What new impedance does your 1:1 balun change you transmission line
and antenna feedpoint to ;-)
>
> The details are complicated, but the concept that the choke DIVERTS
> common-mode current away from the feedline is reasonably accurate. (By
> contrast, the concept that it "turns unwanted RF current into heat" is
> just plain wrong.)
Strawman. I didn't say that! RF current or voltage at the antenna is
not unwanted. You are the one who says you use a common choke choke at
your antenna feedpoint, not I.
>
> If the choke is doing its job, the new value of common-mode current
> (I_cm) flowing through the choke will be much less than the previous
> value. The power dissipation in the choke will then be (I_cm)-squared x
> R, where R is the resistive part of the choke's impedance at that
> frequency. Note that I_cm is the small amount of common-mode current
> that remains *after* having inserted the choke - not the value before!
> The practical outcome is that a higher choke impedance will give *lower*
> heat dissipation in the choke itself.
I cannot believe you are serious. You actually insert a choke at your
antenna input? I insert an efficient balun ;-)
Have you ever thought that there might be a reason for people
differentiating the use of a balun by use of the term "balun"?
There is a reason. On paper, it looks the same as a balun. In
operation, the CM choke presents a high impedance to
unwanted RF where the balun presents a MATCHED impedance to
intentional RF.
>
> If a common-mode choke is getting hot, it isn't working.
It is working quite well if the filtered RF is dissipating in the
intentionally lossy core. (Such as powdered iorn).
Unfortunately
> there are many chokes that don't have a high enough impedance to handle
> the full range of real-life situations. If a choke is not able to
> suppress the common-mode current to a low enough value, then in some
> situations it will get hot [1, 2]. But PLEASE don't imagine that is
> how common-mode chokes are intended to work!
>
> [1] http://www.w8ji.com/Baluns/balun_test.htm
>
> [2]http://audiosystemsgroup.com/NCDXACoaxChokesPPT.pdf
>
> Also see other pages and publications from the same authors.
>
> >> >A
> >> >balun is intended to change the feed from an unbalanced transmission
> >> >line to a balanced output, for example, for connection to a balanced
> >> >transmission line or to an antenna such as a dipole. With the balun,
> >> >we wany NO reduction in RF current flow.
>
> >> What exactly do you mean by that?
Umm, we do not want to reduce power from the transceiver to the
antenna?
>
> >You do not want the balun to operate hot (ir to dissipate heat as you
> >do with a CM choke filter). You strive for 100% transfer of energy and
> >settle for the best
> >you can get. With a CM choke, you try to filter and dissipate unwanted
> >back-RF. Any back RF from your balun
> >should be converted to unbalanced transfer back to the source. You
> >reduce back-RF by matching impedances (which can also involve baluns
> >but not the 1:1 application discussed here). If you try to filter it
> >the unwanted back-RF, you will also end up filtering the forward
> >energy transfer. Of course, that would be an undersirable situation.
>
> Sorry, but that is so confused I can't even begin to unpick it...
It sounds like you have reached the plateau of your ability to
understand RF and transmission lines. THAT is the reason for
you confusion. Sorry.
except
> by pointing to "you try to filter and dissipate unwanted back-RF". In so
> many different ways, that is NOT what we're trying to do. Tug on that
> loose strand, and the whole thing unravels.
Continue the metaphor. Tug on that loose strand and what do you
discover, thus unraveling what?
>
>
>
> >> And also, what exactly do you mean by "balanced" in the context of a
> >> feedline?
>
> >For a 2 conductor feedline, the V in each conductor is 180 degrees out
> >of phase with each other. Same with I.
>
> Yes.
>
> >One conductor is +90 degrees
> >and the other is -90 degrees with respect to earth.
>
> No. Earth and 90 degrees don't come into this at all.
Yes it does! This reveals a large part of your confusion. The shield
on the coax is at earth. Earth is always involved. Do you know that
you could connect an earthing point exactly half way down the
"balanced" winding of the balun and have no effect on the operation of
the balun? There is no reason to do that of course but it illustrates
what the balun does. The center portion of the balanced winding is an
isolated 'earth' connection (that does need to be isolated but it is).
One side is -90, center is 0 (earth) and the other side is +90. On the
unbalanced side, there is no phase shift of course; you only have 0
(shield) and inner conductor voltage/current.
>
> >At any given
> >instant and location the summation of both conductors with respect to
> >each other is equal to the magnitude it would be on the inner
> >conductor on the unbalanced (coax) with respect to ground (shield).
> >Since magnitude of the V on each conductor of the balanced line are
> >equal and opposite in phase, the term "balanced" is appropriate. Same
> >with I.
>
> Yes... but this definition of "balanced" also REQUIRES that the
> common-mode current is zero.
In a perfect situation, with a balanced feedline, the only kind of
current and voltage you have IS common mode!
I give up! You need some education in this area.
John Smith
>> ...
>> 73's
>> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
>
> Oh it's you again. You don't seem to do much other than poke the fire.
>
>
Give him a personality to "poke" (no gay pun intended! :-) ), things
will turn into a real riot then!
Regards,
JS
I was just wondering, "Could Jesus possibly have pointed ears like
spock?" 8-)
John Smith
> ...
> I have often considered the Good Cop Bad Cop theory of the Rep - Dem scam on
> the people. The fact that they go to the same parties and get-togethers
> means they share the same thoughts. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy
> per-se. Think of it as one big party that everyone has to go to or be left
> out, and even though everyone goes kissy-kissy, they are knifing in the
> back. Distrust and polite smack is all around. Rather than conspiracy
> though, there is convergence in thought on matters brought to light to be
> wrestled over while more important matters are forgotten for the moment. We
> the People get left behind.
>
> Who do you vote for though... Obama has been hanging around the Rev. kill
> whitey bunch for too long. No telling what disease he might have picked up.
> There also seems to be some overcompensation, the way he so desperately
> needs to validate himself with every group that he forgets who he is from
> day to day. By the same token, what damage was done to McCain while being
> thrashed in the POW camp. But he does seem to have tolerance and compassion
> even though he sticks to his guns.
>
> The fact we are narrowed to two parties smacks of some kind of collusion.
> Especially in the light of certain travesties of the Dems that the Reps are
> curiously silent on. Perhaps McCain is so attractive due to the fact he has
> proven to be less of a party lapdog.
When Martin Luther King got them to promise, "OK, we are going to cut
you in on a piece of the pie ..." They suddenly kicked open the doors
on immigration from starving/impoverished 3rd world nations and added
the words, to the above, "NOW, grab yourself a piece of that pie!"
"That is 'IT', in a nutshell." However, there are whole books which
would could be written to fill in what the above doesn't mention.
Many have good reason to fear Obama. If he cuts in his friends,
relatives and people of his like color, ethnicity and background(s), we
are all in for "sharing a piece of our pie!" And, we all know it has to
happen, we were just hoping to put it off and let our children deal with
it (like deficit spending, where we have put off our bills for our
children to pay.)
Now, that is enough, I am done with this sub-off-topic-thread ... you
will excuse my leave ...
JB
shield from bringing trouble to the TV chassis. On a transmitting antenna,
the idea is to enforce a high impedance bump somewhere to set the resonant
length other than what it wants to be. That might not contribute to
efficiency even if it prevents the coax from being part of the antenna. If
the antenna is in resonance, there won't be any coax radiation and no Choke
is really needed. My point is, you are best not needing one, but if that is
what you need to put the current out on the wire, or out of the shack. OK.
Of course high gain antennas have a pattern to protect, but does it matter
all that much for anything up to a 3 element yagi? High currents and
voltages on the coax are to be avoided because that is where your loss will
be.
John Smith
That is so bizarre; I just don't know where to begin in the description
of how and how much!
Regards,
JS
Richard Clark
>> > How's this for testimony
>>
>> It isn't.
>Oh it's you again. You don't seem to do much other than poke the fire.
There weren't even sparks left in those dead ashes.
Cecil Moore
> Just because God knows how everything will turn out, doesn't mean our
> choises are of no value.
Actually, if God knows the future, the future is fixed,
everything is predestined, and we do not have free will.
If God already knew everything about this posting of
mine before I made it, I had no choice but to make it
using these exact words.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Cecil Moore
> In the end you will have to be open to the Holy
> Spirit before anything can come of it.
Please prove that the "Holy Spirit" exists outside
of the human mind.
Cecil Moore
> I use an ugly balun with an attic GRrV and do not suffer significant
> back-RFI to my transceiver in the regular frequency ranges. I think
> that by chosing 1Kohm that may be a bit conservative. In (old)
> engineering school, we tended to use an order of magnitude (X10) as
> our highly arbitrary :) cut-off point for impedances that have a
> significant effect. You are doing that too but by using 1000 ohms, you
> are using (X10 times 2) as your arbitrary cutoff point. Since the
> filter is an exponential curve, if you chose 500 ohms instead of 1000
> ohms, you might even get a 4 or 5 to 1 frequency range. In my case I
> use two different turns chokes so that is why I think I am covered
> pretty well. Your information is very interesting; good to see people
> are actually measuring things!
Actually, 1000 ohms is pretty liberal. For instance, on
15m, the G5RV coax sees 36+j230 ohms or about 233 ohms.
The balun needs to be 10x that value or 2330 ohms.
Cecil Moore
> A common mode choke is used in RF applications, very true, but it
> serves a filtering purpose, not a conversion of unbalanced to
> balanced energy transfer or vice
> versa. A common mode choke that operates well will turn
> unwanted RF into heat or cause it to dissipate in its core or a
> resistor etc..
The common "W2DU balun" works well as both choke and
balun function.
Roy Lewallen
and How They Do It" in the _ARRL Antenna Compendium_, Vol. 1 or at
http://eznec.com/Amateur/Articles/Baluns.pdf.
Roy Lewallen, W7EL
John Smith
> ...
> Actually, if God knows the future, the future is fixed,
> everything is predestined, and we do not have free will.
> If God already knew everything about this posting of
> mine before I made it, I had no choice but to make it
> using these exact words.
Actually, I have heard this argument(s)/discussion(s) since a very early
age.
I see no conflict between me having complete free choice and the ability
to control my destiny exactly as I see fit, or change my mind to fit
me--right along side an all-knowing mind who has already seen every
decision and change of heart I will have in my lifetime (the future is
there for me to discover and make my decisions to influence--but
he/she/it/the-aliens has/have already "been there, seen that!" ... )
What am I missing?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> JB wrote:
>> In the end you will have to be open to the Holy
>> Spirit before anything can come of it.
>
> Please prove that the "Holy Spirit" exists outside
> of the human mind.
Well, "Grain Spirits" exist outside my mind (and body), until I drink
them--then suddenly, I feel like I am "FILLED WITH THE HOLY
SPIRIT!"--well, if I drink enough anyway ... ;-)
Obviously, in the above, that "HOLY SPIRIT" was not originally there, so
it had to be outside, somewhere! :-|
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Please prove that the "Holy Spirit" exists outside
> of the human mind.
Remember, "Holy" and "Grain" both have the same name. Most likely come
from the same lineage; they might even be brothers!
Some ancient text from the bible I once read, if I remember correctly,
said something akin to, " ... take a little wine for the spirit ..."
Obviously a toast to one, or both, of those brothers!
Regards,
JS
Cecil Moore
> What am I missing?
Even if an omnipotent being is not omniscient, he is.:-)
John Smith
> ...
> Even if an omnipotent being is not omniscient, he is.:-)
As soon as I "cement" what can happen in my mind, or the realm of
possibilities, I also change what will happen ...
How can I limit a God (aliens, etc.) I cannot even begin to fathom,
indeed, how can anyone?
Perhaps time is like an infinite building of rooms, the past is but a
series of rooms in one direction from the "present room", the future an
endless series of rooms stretching the other direction. And, perhaps
God walks these rooms with the ease I do my own home ...
I hate to even do this speculation, as I begin to place limits which may
divert me away from envisioning other possibilities ... when we know
more about time, we will finally be able to make far better guesstimates.
When something is truly "unknown", it is truly unknown ...
Regards,
JS
Cecil Moore
> When something is truly "unknown", it is truly unknown ...
Unfortunately, with an omniscient God, the future is known
and cannot be changed by your "free will".
dfi...@nc.rr.com
Yes and I have to partially take back what I said; a balun CAN double
as a CM "choke" and a CM choke can double as a balun. If
one wishes to balance an unbalanced line with a CM choke, then the
impedance of the CM choke must match the source and the load, which
makes the CM choke a balun and no longer a choke :-)
dfi...@nc.rr.com
Why not 500 ohms, assuming a 50 ohm source and transmission line?
John Smith
> John Smith wrote:
>> When something is truly "unknown", it is truly unknown ...
>
> Unfortunately, with an omniscient God, the future is known
> and cannot be changed by your "free will".
Well, we are now focused on the crux of the matter, alright.
However, I see him/her/it/the-aliens only being able to view the after
effects of my free will ... in my speculation(s) of how-this-all-works,
of course.
I see the mind of God as having similarities to my own (man created in
Gods' image--it is most difficult for me to see it any other way.) He
would not conduct an "experiment" in which he controlled all action;
the reason? Too boring. The variable is my freewill which provides the
seed-of-chaos, however, one piece of equipment in "his laboratory"
allows him to view the final outcome(s), and ahead of me experiencing
the same.
But then, I have nothing to argue against the way you would envision it
... can we agree to wonder until some point in the future offers a proof
worth extrapolating from?
Or, in other words, the only horse I have in the race is curiosity of
"the truth."
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Yes and I have to partially take back what I said; a balun CAN double
> as a CM "choke" and a CM choke can double as a balun. If
> one wishes to balance an unbalanced line with a CM choke, then the
> impedance of the CM choke must match the source and the load, which
> makes the CM choke a balun and no longer a choke :-)
>
>
Although this URL:
http://www.radioelectronicschool.net/files/downloads/ocfdipole.pdf
deals with a Windom Antenna, his text on the design, construction,
function and implementation of baluns is well worth the read.
Regards,
JS
Owen Duffy
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 1, 3:25 pm, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote:
>> dfi...@nc.rr.com wrote:
...
>> Actually, 1000 ohms is pretty liberal. For instance, on
>> 15m, the G5RV coax sees 36+j230 ohms or about 233 ohms.
>> The balun needs to be 10x that value or 2330 ohms.
>> --
>> 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
>
> Why not 500 ohms, assuming a 50 ohm source and transmission line?
>
The common mode impedance of the balun acts in the common mode
transmission line (which is mutually coupled to the nominal radiator).
How is the differential mode transmission line characteristic impedance
relevant to the determination of common mode current in the antenna
system scenario described?
Owen
Walter Maxwell
It's a trivial point, I agree, but there is one error in the url JS provided
above that needs correcting. The VK author tells us that the Windom antenna was
invented by Loren G. Windom. Tain't so. It was invented (developed) by William
Everitt, then the Dean of the EE Dept at Ohio State U. Everitt was doing the
grunt work and taking measurements along with another OSU professor. However.
Loren Windom was a student of Everitt's, and was tagging along and observing.
Then, later on he wrote up the experiment and had it published in QST sometime
in 1929, and as well as I can remember, he failed to give Everitt any credit for
having done the actual work. Consequently, readers of QST assumed it was
Windom's invention, while it actually was not.
Walt, W2DU