|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
Bill Savage (K3AN)
on
September 4, 2009
View comments about this article!
I have been using SGC-230 autotuners to match various wire antennas going back over 15 years and four QTHs. In particular, the only antenna I had at several of those QTHs was an Inverted L. The SGC was always able to match the wire lengths I used until I moved to my present QTH.
The inverted L here consists of about 135 feet of insulated, 18-ga. “stealth” antenna wire. The first 60 to 65 feet of wire run vertically up into the topmost branches of a large oak tree, and the remainder goes across an open space to another treetop that's about the same height above ground. The SGC tuner is attached to the first tree trunk with the bottom about a foot off the ground. The operating ground system consists of a short length of heavy braid, a single ground rod, and seven radials, all attached to a stainless sink strainer “radial plate” as described in http://www.eham.net/articles/21438.
The SGC autotuner readily finds a match on almost every band. The 160-Meter band is the sole exception. On that band the tuner can find a match only at the low end. As you move up in frequency the SWR rises until it reaches the trigger point where the tuner attempts to find a new match. At this point the tuner goes into an endless search, and you can watch the SWR meter bounce up and down as the tuner switches in various series L and shunt C combinations in a futile attempt to achieve a match.
I initially thought this was some kind of stray RF problem, but all attempts to solve it failed. Then I started reading the manual to see if it addresses this problem. It doesn't. But I learned a few things about the tuner as I read the theory of operation section. The SGC-230 tuning elements are arranged in what appears to be a conventional Pi-network, with a separate bank of relay-switched shunt capacitors located on either side of a bank of relay-switched series inductors. However, the manual explains that the tuner is actually an L-network configuration. Either the input side or the output side capacitors are selected, but never both.
When initiating a tuning cycle, the SGC first determines whether the resistive part of the load impedance is higher or lower than 50 Ohms. If it's higher, the capacitors on the output side of the inductors are used. Otherwise the capacitors on the input side of the inductors are used. I don't know why SGC didn't use a relay to switch a single bank of capacitors to either the input or output side of the inductors, but at least in the SGC-230 there are two separate banks of capacitors.
My next step was to use EZNEC to model my inverted L, more specifically to determine the feedpoint impedance. The resistive portion of the impedance is higher than 50 Ohms on all the bands 80 and up. On 160 Meters the antenna is approximately a quarter wave so I expected the resistive portion to be low. Sure enough, EZNEC said the impedance was approximately 18 - j13 Ohms at 1.8 MHz and 24 + j78 Ohms at 2.0 MHz. Notice that the reactance goes from negative to positive somewhere between 1.8 and 2.0 MHz. That means the antenna is slightly less than a quarter wave at 1.8 MHz, and is a bit longer than a quarter wave at 2.0 MHz.
I then plugged those numbers into a DOS-based L-Network calculator program I found on the Internet some time back. You'll find it at http://webpages.charter.net/crstrode/calcs/RFcalcs.htm, which is maintained by WA7CS. The program is very simple to use, and provides values for both possible L-network configurations- series L/shunt C and series C/shunt L.
At 1.8 MHz, the program shows the required values to be 2358 pF on the input side of the network, and 3.01 uH of series inductance. This is within the range of the SGC-230. At 2.0 MHz, the required values were 1529 pF shunt capacitance and 1304 pF series capacitance. Whoa! At this frequency the series element must be capacitive, not inductive!
The SGC-230 can't insert a series capacitive reactance, so that explains why the tuner couldn't find a match above the low end of 160.
When the resistive value of the antenna's impedance is above 50 Ohms, it doesn't matter whether the sign of the reactance is positive or negative. An L network consisting of series L and shunt C can always match the load.
So here's what you need to be aware of if you deploy this type of tuner to match an end-fed wire antenna. Don't choose a wire length that is slightly longer than a quarter wavelength on any frequency of interest. Make the wire length at least 3/8 wavelength, or else make it at least a little bit less than a quarter wavelength.
I hope this will help other hams solve any failure-to-match problems they may have encountered when using this kind of tuner, and help them select a wire length that will allow proper operation of the tuner on all desired frequencies.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AD5X on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the shunt capacitor on the output side is about 1550pf and the series inductor is about 8.5uhy you should be able to achieve a match. However, the maximum output capacitance of the SG-230 is only 800pf. You might try shunting a 1000pf capacitor across the tuner output and see if this will permit the SG-230 to tune the antenna. Of course, you'll need to remove the capacitor for higher frequencies. Maybe use a remote high voltage relay for this.
I did something similar. I added a 25uhy inductor in series with the output of a MFJ-927 to tune a 43-foot vertical on 160 meters. The MFJ-927 is a reversible-L, but only has a maximum inductance of about 25uhy which is not enough for that configuration. Info on my website.
Phil - AD5X
www.ad5x.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by K0BG on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to believe the SG230 and SG235 use the same algorithm, as their active component values are identical. In any case...
I don't have my notes in front of me, but I was told by an SGC engineer (Terry I think), that in some tuning scenarios the coupler can indeed be configured as a Pi network. Having had a similar problem with an SG235, I carefully labeled every relay, so I could tell which values (L and C) were selected. In a few cases, both input and output C was used (Pi). When and why this occurs, remains a mystery.
The major problem I had was relays and caps. Over the 2 or so years I used the SC235s (I owned two), I must have replaced 25 relays, and about the same number of caps. I sure wouldn't describe them as robust!
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N5TGL on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nice writeup, and great explanation of how you tracked it down. Thanks!
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill,
I don't know if this will help but here goes.
I have owned an SGC-237 for about 8 years and
I love it. I have found a few quirks. If an antenna
resonates in a particular area of a band then the
tuner cannot find a tuning solution. Also on
occasion lightning or stray RF will cause it to
get it's brains scrambled. As for the stray RF I
followed some of Alan's guidelines and eliminated
that but their is nothing you can do about the
lightning except reset the tuner when it occurs.
I was amazed at how many places an antenna will
resonate when I put an antenna analyzer on it.
Good luck cousin,
Tim Savage WA4PTZ
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you look through old handbooks and antenna books from about 1955 to about 1980, you will find quite a few articles for constructing different kinds of tuners. Some tuners had the ability to shift caps and coils into different physical placement. These tuners were ignored mostly because they seemed too complicated to make and use. And there is the problem. These were the best tuners ever designed for ham use. You could have any thing you needed. T,L,PI in any configuration.
Hams like things simple and cheap. But that doesn't produce a very good tuner. Each tuner that is an L (high or low pass design), T (high pass or low pass), PI, link, and parallel or series resonant have characteristics that make them work at certain Z loads better than others. But hams like the nice and simple L or T that is fixed and they all want to believe "it will match anything I throw at it" or "it will match anything including the handsprings". NO IT WON'T!
In order to make cheap tuners and make hams believe the tuners will match anything two configurations have been popular for about 40 years, ie., the low pass L and the high pass T. These tuners are about as simple as you can make a tuner and cheap. But each has tuning limitations depending mostly upon how big the caps are and which physical configuration is used.
Most auto tuners are low pass L and most manual tuners are T with a few exceptions. Both types have limitations. When hams start to get out of denial that their tuners are perfect matching devices, they will accept that their particular tuner may not match everything and it doesn't make it a bad tuner.
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by WB1FPA on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've used auto-tuners with elements slightly longer than 1/4 wave and up to 3/8 wave. I place a RF rated (voltage and amperage)capacitor in series with the tuner's output after studying the length on the HF bands with Eznec and a Smith Chart. The idea is to use the largest value capacitor that will allow your auto tuner to tune all of 160M (atleast all you are interested in) and still be able to deal with the impedance on the higher bands. My current Inv-L is 175ft long and has two 100ft long , above ground, counterpoise wires. The LDG RT-11 remote auto-tuner can achieve a match on all bands from 160M thru 10M with of series capacitance. (400pF 5kV doorknob cap). It can just make the match on 75M , but 60M<>10M is easy tuning. -WB1FPA Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AA4PB on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have an SG-230, ground mounted, directly feeding an inverted-L of about 140 feet total length. It's been that way since 2001 and I've never had a problem tuning any band including 160M.
I've not had any memory problems due to lightning, although I don't operate during a storm. It stays connected but the DC power is off and the coax input is grounded.
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AB7E on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
L-networks are able to match either up or down in impedance (relative to the load), but as the author states, not with the same configuration. They are also capable of driving either inductive or capacitive loads, but not necessarily with the same configuration. The SGC L-network tuner referenced in this article was able to selectively choose either a shunt input capacitor or a series input inductor, but it wasn't able to choose either a series input capacitor or a shunt input inductor. If it was able to do the latter two configurations as well, it would have been able to tune the author's antenna without him needing to trim it. The switching and ground isolation necessary to achieve all four configurations gets pretty messy, though, which is why you don't usually see it.
By the way, no L-network will match a load impedance that is equal to the source impedance. So if you have an antenna that is approximately resonant with an impedance close to 50 ohms resistive, it may be difficult for a real-world L-network tuner to match it. That's why T-networks are so popular. Think of it as a configurable L-network tuner (either series capacitor or shunt inductance on the input) with a series capacitor to shift the impedance (either load or source as necessary) away from 50 ohms. If an L-network would have done the job just fine, the preferred setting for the unneeded series capacitor in a T-network is plates fully meshed to try to minimize its effect.
Some commercial "L-network" tuners were even built with a fixed series capacitor that could be switched in to handle such difficult loads, in essence converting themselves to a T-network tuner even though they didn't admit it.
For loads not close to the source impedance, an L-network tuner is often capable of less internal loss compared with a T-network tuner ... but the T-network is more versatile. I've built several high power homebrew T-network tuners over the years, but the next one I build will have the capability to simply short out either the input or output capacitor when it isn't needed. A piece of wire is cheaper than lots of picofarads, and in terms of switching it is much simpler to short out a capacitor when it isn't needed than to insert one in series when it is needed.
73,
Dave AB7E
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by K3AN on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB1FPA, that is exactly what I intend to do with my antenna. It shouldn't take much series capacitive reactance (meaning I'll need a relatively large amount of capacitance) to shift the overall system reactance to where the SGC can switch in the proper series inductance. This will be a temporary arrangement for the relatively few times I operate 160 during a winter.
In reply to another post, an L network consisting of a variable inductor and capacitor CAN transform any complex impedance to a desired resistive load (typically 50 Ohms) as long as you can select either the inductor or the capacitor as the series element, and can place the other element either on the input or the output side of the network. That's a total of four possible configurations.
Finally, I own three SGC-230s. I bought all of them used, the first one about 10 years ago. It has spent at least seven of those 10 years in the great outdoors, matching various wire antennas. I have never had a problem with any of them so I consider the product to be quite robust.
K3AN
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I did something similar. I added a 25uhy inductor in series with the output of a MFJ-927 to tune a 43-foot vertical on 160 meters."
"I place a RF rated capacitor in series with the tuner's output after studying the length on the HF bands with Eznec and a Smith Chart. .... My current Inv-L is 175ft long and has two 100ft long , above ground, counterpoise wires."
>>> Interesting..... 2 amateurs using outboard components to enable a commercial autotuner to perform on 160 but tuning the opposite situation - a short versus long antenna.
Short of designing one's own multiband tuner, this is the right fix, but it's funny how these outboard capacitors and inductors seem to be putting autotuners back in business on 160.
...WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AB7E on September 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3AN: "In reply to another post, an L network consisting of a variable inductor and capacitor CAN transform any complex impedance to a desired resistive load (typically 50 Ohms) as long as you can select either the inductor or the capacitor as the series element, and can place the other element either on the input or the output side of the network. That's a total of four possible configurations. "
That isn't true for the situation where the source and load impedances are equal. None of the four possible combinations will "match" identical impedances. And for situations where they are fairly close but not equal, the required inductance and capacitance are not very achievable in practice (inductance in tenths or even hundredths of a uH and capacitance in units or tenths of a pf).
73,
Dave AB7E
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmmmm,
There are many statements being made here that an L network can match any Impedance. In theory that is correct. But in practice you better have enough Capacitance, or you won't match much of anything.
A possible worst case scenario is matching a 1/2 size dipole on 160m. That is, to match 50 ohms to 2 ohms on 160m, you would need approximately 16,000 pf to do it with an L network.
To match 50 ohms to 12.5 ohms (4:1 swr) on 160m, you would need 3050 pf to match it.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W9OY on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I added outboard inductance and a second tap to the link to get my Johnson Matchbox on 160 back in the 70's so its not just the "autotuners" that have issues on 160.
This is an interesting thread
73 W9OY
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Correction:
For a .2 ohm (very short 160m antenna), you would need about 16,000pf.
For a 2.0 ohm 160m antenna, you would need about 8500pf.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W9OY on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The simplest solution might be to adjust the antenna length
73 W9OY
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I added outboard inductance and a second tap to the link to get my Johnson Matchbox on 160 back in the 70's so its not just the "autotuners" that have issues on 160."
>>> The Johnson Matchbox was not design for use on 160, just 80-10 meters, so it wasn't an issue.
I believe Johnson created a modified version to allow operation on 160 but it's very rare. For 160, it is probably de-rated in terms of power handling as well.
...WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AD5X on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TenTec supplies a 1000pf capacitor with their 238 tuner to help with tuning on 160 meters.
Phil - AD5X
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AB7E on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you want to verify what an L-network tuner can and cannot do, use the program TLW that comes free with the ARRL Antenna Book. It's easy to use and once you choose a feedline and load impedance, you can click on the "Tuner" button to have it design a matching network for you.
To explore a T-network tuner, simply use the virtual tuner at the following URL. Note that you can almost make it look like an L-network tuner by choosing very high capacitance values for either series capacitor and then replacing it with a short (i.e., remove it) when you actually build it.
http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/tuner/tuner.html
73,
Dave AB7E
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AD5X on September 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's another good matching site:
http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/RF/projects/60GHz/matching/ImpMatch.html
Phil - AD5X
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W5DXP on September 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
45 years ago, a lot of transmitters had CLC pi-net output stages built in. I wonder how we ever managed to match inductive loads in those days since the CLC pi-net didn't have a series capacitor? :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The widest matching range for a given cost of components and complexity easily comes from a C-L-C type "T" network. There is no comparison by any other network in the regard to matching range and simplicity.
The worse network by far in cost vs. matching range is a pi network.
The L is as bad as a pi for matching range because of the extreme component value range required, and the cost is up because of the switching required if you want to match all phase angles and a high or low Z at the load.
The old pi's in tube transmitters appeared to work well because almost every antenna was a whole lot lower in impedance than the generally very high nearly resistive anode operating loadline of the tubes. An L would work well that way too.
Those are the choices and compromises we pay for. We especially have restrictions when we start considering voltages and currents in relays and small components in relay stepped autotuners.
Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
L networks really get a bad rap. I like them because they operate at low Q (never over 10), have wider bandwidth before having to re tune, have a nice sloppy tuning characteristic, and have significant lower losses than T tuners which operate at very high Q ( 100 -200 !).
Getting high values of C is not all that hard. I use a 8 - 1000pf 5kv vacuum cap and 4 transmitting micas (1000pf, 2000pf, 4000pf, 8000pf) that can be switched in using any combo to give 1000pf steps from 0 - 15,000pf for padding.
For virtually all loads, I rarely use more that a 1000pf padder. I use more padding when I use very short whip antennas on 80 and 160m.
I like T networks when I want a balanced tuner, the type that use 4 variable caps and an inductor.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by K3AN on September 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to all who posted replies. I obtained a 2200 pF silver mica capacitor at the Shelby Hamfest last weekend and temporarily installed it (in series) between the tuner output terminal and the end of the antenna wire. Unfortunately the tailgater had no other suitable vales, as 2200 pF doesn't have enough reactance. At 2 MHz, its reactance is -j36.2 Ohms. But with the capacitor in place, the SGC now matches the antenna up to at least 1.9 MHz. This will be adequate as I normally just operate CW on this band.
73,
K3AN
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by G3RZP on September 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It can be a major pain when the antenna goes through resonance. I have that problem with my top loaded tower on 80, meaning I have to have variable L and variable C. A vacuum variable and coil from a WW2 ET4336, remotely controlled. Plotting on the Smith Chart overlay that coems with Smith's book and placing on the sets of curves for L network matching show this in a very easily read graphical way.
Never used to have a problem until I changed the 205BA to a 4 ele Steppir and so changed the top loading, even though I now have the directors and reflector of the Steppir bonded to the boom. Before doing the bonding, the situation was even worse....
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFRF writes:
"L networks really get a bad rap. I like them because they operate at low Q (never over 10), have wider bandwidth before having to re tune, have a nice sloppy tuning characteristic, and have significant lower losses than T tuners which operate at very high Q ( 100 -200 !)."
Absolutely false on all counts.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by G3RZP on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
L network Q may be shown to be basically the sq. rt. [(R2/R1)-1] where R2 is the larger resistance to be matched and R1 the smaller
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm surprised someone would say these things:
<<L networks really get a bad rap. I like them because they operate at low Q (never over 10)>>
Wrong. The Q has to be approximately the square root of the impedance ratios. A T or pi is nearly the same. L networks have not been the most popular because for a given dollar investment they are by far the most limited in frequency and matching range. L networks either cost much more, or else they match a significantly narrower range of impedances at significantly less power for the same cost as a T.
<<(T networks) have wider bandwidth before having to re tune, have a nice sloppy tuning characteristic>>
This is why they also have limited matching range for a given size of components. Sluggish tuning is a not always good.
<<and have significant lower losses than T tuners which operate at very high Q ( 100 -200 !).>>
That's just silly. Virtually no T network would ever operate with a Q in that range.
A typical 250 pF variable 50-ohm input T network matching a 500 ohm resistive load would have an operating Q of 7.2 on 160 meters, going down to around Q=3 on 29 MHz. It would be virtually the same as the L network in Q from 80 meters on up. The only difference is the T would handle significantly wider matching ranges with much less expensive components and less expensive wiring and construction.
<<Getting high values of C is not all that hard. I use a 8 - 1000pf 5kv vacuum cap and 4 transmitting micas (1000pf, 2000pf, 4000pf, 8000pf) that can be switched in using any combo to give 1000pf steps from 0 - 15,000pf for padding. >>
That's OK for a junk-box tuner, but a great deal of expense commercially. The variable alone, if it was an import, would be several hundred dollars. Plus you have to switch all those parts. And all that expense would be for no real electrical advantage in Q or efficiency, and provide much less matching range.
<<For virtually all loads, I rarely use more that a 1000pf padder. I use more padding when I use very short whip antennas on 80 and 160m.>>>
A T could do the same with fewer parts, less cost, and less switching.
<<I like T networks when I want a balanced tuner, the type that use 4 variable caps and an inductor.>>
Which basically does the same matching thing as a simple T with a good 1:1 current balun on the output, except the more complicated ladder or H network is a balanced voltage source, instead of a being a better balanced current source.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI...You have been fooling people on this site for years. The example you chose was not random at all was it? Now, let me pick an example.
I get loads like this all the time on my 160m antennas.
12.5-j1000 This is a much more real world situation.
Band Width-------L network 370.7 khz, T network 7.8 khz
Network Q--------L network 2.0, T network 94.7
Coil Loss--------L network 468w, T network 718w
Cap Loss---------L network 2w, T network 75w
Total Loss-------L network 1.6 db, T network 3.3 db
W8JI would you like to check my numbers??? Would you like an even more extreme example?
W8JI, you may be fooling most everybody on this site but there are a few of us here that you aren't fooling at all.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI-
You seem to really like your 1:1 current balun but why have you not revealed how it really works or doesn't? Unless you really don't know.
After tests on your "current balun" it doesn't work quite as advertised.
For example, the best current balance of a current balun driven by an unbalanced tuner was about 60% (and that was the very best under special circumstances).
However, when the 1:1 current balun was driven by a balanced tuner or a voltage balun, the current balance was more like 88%, but still far from 100% balanced.
And I don't know where anybody got the idea that you can connect any kind of balun to an unbalance tuner and unbalance load and get anything balanced?????????
The current balun is not a magic device. Or maybe some hams think it is. That's scary.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is another one.
Load = 5+j0 in an L tuner and a T tuner.
bandwidth------- L= 240khz, T= 11khz
Q--------------- L= 3.o, T= 61.4
Loss in coil-----L= 22w, T= 460w (not a typo!)
Loss in caps-----L= 4w, T= 10w
Losses are based on 1.5kw power into tuner.
Add some -j reactance and the T gets even worse.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFRF writes:
"Here is another one.
Load = 5+j0 in an L tuner and a T tuner.
bandwidth------- L= 240khz, T= 11khz
Q--------------- L= 3.o, T= 61.4
Loss in coil-----L= 22w, T= 460w (not a typo!)
Loss in caps-----L= 4w, T= 10w"
First of all I don't know, and I doubt that you do either, what you are calling "bandwidth", so arguments about that are pointless.
However, you must be joking with the Q and loss figures you propose for a tee-network.
Given reasonable component Qs, 1000 for capacitors and 200 for inductors, an optimum tee-network that matches 5+j0 to 50+j0 is comprised of two equal series reactances of -j15.811 and a shunt reactance of +j15.811. (These can be tweaked a tiny bit to compensate the small losses and improve the match, but I figure SWR = 1.02 is good enough). The loss in this network is 0.092 dB.
To be sure, and I've been writing about this for years, before it became a popular topic in the ham journals, the downside to any network with more than two adjustable reactances is that there are an infinite number of combinations that can provide a match, but only one is optimum from a loss standpoint. If the network that you "designed" does in fact affect a match, then you have made my case.
An L-network to do the same transformation would use a series reactance of +j15 and a shunt reactance of -j16.67. The associated loss would be 0.08 dB, a difference of 0.3%,
Wes Stewart N7WS
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7WS--
Take your meds and a nap. Your symptoms may go away.
BTW---Bandwidth is the change in frequency that changes the swr from 1:1 to 1:1.5.
If you think you know what you are doing, keep doing it. You will just keep making a total fool out of yourself. There are at least 10-15 software packages that say you are wrong and doing it by hand also will prove you have no idea what you are doing.
This site is full of idiots that don't know what they are talking about or have a commercial agenda in promoting products they are involved in. You fall under the idiot category.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ricky,
I guess when the facts and science fail you, the best you can do is fall back on name calling. Seems like the childish thing to do. Well done!
If you want to discuss anything further with us adults, be prepared to show your work.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would I waste time showing you anything. You don't have a clue what you are doing.
You say that to match 5+j0 ohms to 50+j0 ohms you would use the same capacitive reactance on the 5 ohm side and on the 50 ohm side, along with a inductive reactance of the same value except opposite sign. Any clown that does series to parallel conversions knows that in a T network, the series reactances can't be the same if the resistances on each side are not the same. And you have the inductor the same reactance too.
And you think you know what you are doing? Go back to school and shut up. You are making a fool of yourself.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on September 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI is highly respected. He is published in many places.
He ELMERS. HE SPEAKS THE FACTS. HE IS NOT ALWAYS TRYING TO SELL YOU ONE OF HIS PRODUCTS. His baluns uniuns, feed chokes are designed with a good factor of safety. You want a manufacturer to be conservative.
If you want mil spec like stuff with great support, DX engineering is king.
Try some MFJ products for a while. Many have smoked their 300W tuners with 100W and a high swr or a discontinuity.
Build your own Balun. See if it holds up for over 10 years.
Did not mean to come downn on you like a load of fleeshetes. Steel ultra aerodynamic antipersonel impaling spikes. Nasty invention created for Vietnam.\
You do not want to start off with a bad rep.
Heck when I was a 16 year old Extra, I really pissed of some OTs Remember ham radio is supposed be about learning and improving the state of the art.
Many Hams incorperated, and sell their ham radio products. Looks like hams will have access to more american made goods.
Russias Putin pulled a crazy ivan. Our trade deficite with China is embarrasing.
I blame our elected officials. Heck, nobody here got any inside stock trade deal.
Glad to buy American. Who here ever thought Elecrafts K3 is considered an extremely well designed radio. The K2 boke with all Japanese design paradym.
I remember in engineering school I coud not elive what my prof said.......There is absolutly nothing better with a single conversion RX and a dual conversion
Sure enough, I found out my k2 was single conversion.
Less parts and the rado had a BDR far superior to many JA rice boxes.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by G3RZP on September 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you just have one impedance to match to 50 ohms, then the L is fine - just two components. If you want a tuner that covers several bands or works with any antenna, then a different network is called for. For unbalanced antennas, a straight forward parallel tuned circuit using the old rule of 1.5pF per metre of wavelength, and the tx tapped at the ground end and the antenna tapped to get a match works well. Not a commercially viable approach, though. The Johnson matchbox was a good idea, but would be horrendously expensive to make today. Which is why the T network is popular for commercial use, but isn't necessarily the best if you roll your own. I have dedicated tuners remotely tuned for each antenna/band combination. When you have boxes of wide spaced air variables, big switches and large ceramic coil forms, plus a good machine shop, it's not a problem!
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Dick K4XU (HFRF),
The information you gave on the L and T is not meaningful because you have allowed the L network ANY amount of component size required in any configuration, but unfairly insist on restricting the T to a very limited range of component values of a certain sign.
My point specifically is this:
While a T is indeed a low-loss network, the losses in an L are not any different than a T if we allow the T to have the same component value ranges. The difference is not in the network, it is in the range of components you allowed.
The L simply will not tune a system unless the value of components produces a certain operating Q, that Q being dictated by load and source impedances. The T network can use a wide range of operating Q's, meaning it can use substantially less expensive components while covering a much wider matching range without significantly different loss than an L would produce.
Where a T might require 250 pF of capacitance and a reasonable size inductor, an L matching the same impedance might demand several thousand pF. Worse yet the L would need a voltage rating that would handle the highest impedance and power load condition in very high value capacitors...while the T pretty much would have the same voltage requirements without require the huge capacitance values.
It seems like you are in the minority here in your opinions (and personal attacks) Dick.
73 Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Editorial mode ON. On this day and time 8 years ago I remember exactly where I was. I was 1300 miles from home in my travel trailer and all I knew was that I wanted to be home. I made the trip in a day and a half.
I remember too in the days following, the remarkable civility that everyone exhibited. No more cutting each other off in traffic, no extended middle digits, no raised voices, etc. My how quickly we forget and revert to this:
>"Why would I waste time showing you anything. You don't have a clue what you are doing."
>"You say that to match 5+j0 ohms to 50+j0 ohms you would use the same capacitive reactance on the 5 ohm side and on the 50 ohm side, along with a inductive reactance of the same value except opposite sign. Any clown that does series to parallel conversions knows that in a T network, the series reactances can't be the same if the resistances on each side are not the same. And you have the inductor the same reactance too."
>"And you think you know what you are doing? Go back to school and shut up. You are making a fool of yourself."
In respect for the day I will not respond in kind, but will point out that while I am “clueless”, according to HFRF, I am still able to solve this problem in my head.
Recognizing that both impedances to be matched are real and thus fall on the real axis of the Smith chart, those of us who are “clueless”, but nevertheless have been using Smith charts for 30+ years, can picture this in our heads. If the chart is normalized by a value that makes the magnitude of rho equal for the two impedances, then they fall an equal distance from the origin but 180 chart degrees (1/4 wavelength) apart.
So the two impedances can be matched by using a ¼ wavelength line of Zo = normalizing factor. This happens to be the geometric mean = (5 * 50) ^.5 or, surprise, 15.81. Of course, those of us who are clueless don’t actually have to go through all of this mental gyrating, we can leap to the geometric mean value from experience.
But at this point, HFRF is saying, “You fool, we are talking about tee-networks, not transmission lines and besides where are you going to get a 15.81 ohm transmission line?”
To be continued....
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Turning on the noise blanker and eliminating the sputtering noises from the peanut gallery, I continue...
As already proven earlier, a 5+j0 load can be matched to 50+j0 by using a 1/4 wavelength line of Zo = 15.81.
Now it's been known from at least 1944* that a 1/4 wavelength line can be synthesized by using a T or pi equivalent composed lumped elements.
So a T (or pi) network, either high or low pass can be used as a matching circuit, equivalent to a 1/4 wavelength transmission. For them to be equivalent, the series elements must be of the same magnitude (Zo) and sign and the shunt element must be of the same magnitude (Zo) but opposite sign.
As I recall this is exactly what I stated several posts ago, only to be derided for not knowing what I was talking about.
I will leave it to the readers to make up their own minds about who does, or does not, know what they are talking about.
N7WS
* "Equivalent T and Pi Sections for the Quarter-Wavelength Line", C. G. Brennecke, Proceedings of the I.R.E., January 1944, pp 15-17, available at: http://materias.fi.uba.ar/6654/download/01694832.pdf
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by G3RZP on September 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Adding to the N7WS comment, you can also synthesise in the same way a half wavelength line, and get back to the old 'halfwave filter', which has uses in that it reproduces at its input the load impedance at its output - at one frequency, of course. Once upon a time, it was a popular TVI filter before the current move to a 50ohm LPF and a matched antenna. Of course, the quarter wave line when matched is also effectively transparent.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice analogy Wes.
The bottom line is, dollar investment for dollar investment, the C-L-C "T" network will have significantly better power handling, operating frequency range, and impedance matching range than an L network.
Now if we take cost out of the equation each is nearly equal, provided we allow each to have optimized component values.
The T wins, as Dick points out, when we let the L have optimum component values (it won't match without them) and force the T to have very poor components (it CAN match even with far from optimum values). So long as we do a totally uneven comparison (as Dick did), we can make a poor system look very good or a good system look very bad.
Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How long have you actually been using that tired bs sales pitch?
How long have you been trying to convince those with T tuners that its actually fun retuning every 5khz and how much fun (hard) it is sometimes to find a dip in swr while turning a knob a millionth of an inch at a time on a cap shaft that already has a 6:1 reduction.
How long have you been telling T tuner users that the 500 watts the coil is dissipating is just fine, it won't burn up the coil for another 2 minutes of operating.
How long as you been selling the notion that your 1:1 current balun is the perfect fix for every antenna and transmission line problem when you won't provide one shed of testing evidence that your claims are true even though you have a test lab full of test equipment.
How long are you going to hide the test results you already have about your current balun since they don't back up your claims of your 1:1 current balun.
How long Tom, really now, how long?
And if there is a Dick around here you know who that really is!
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just as a suggestion JI, it isn't necessary to try to crush and discredit every positive statement that is made about L or other kinds of tuners and of the inherent balanced types just because it might be bad for your business with your financial interest in T tuners and current baluns.
Every time Ten Tec or Palstar sells an L tuner, you must see the $2 you just lost flash before your eyes.
T tuners do have some good advantages, but so do other tuners. There is room for everybody. Paranoia is not good for mental health.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JI on September 12, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Richard,
I have no financial interest at all in T networks. Never did have. Doesn't affect my bottom line at all.
I just don't like your nonsense and constant personal attacks against anyone or everyone who ever disagrees with you.
Now if you had to use your call so others knew who you were (like I do and it seems Wes does) instead of HFRF, you would probably behave better. I assume you would be embarrassed to act like you do and have people know who you are, most normal people would be.
Have a good evening out there on the west coast, and keep those semiconductors coming off the line!
73 Tom
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W5WSS on September 14, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The ideal" criteria for a wide range tuner should be that very little thru loss occurs under a Proper condition of tune. Some articles have addressed the insertion loss, and tuned loss....How many of we hams actually know what the losses are? The excursions away from a minimal loss 52 ohms resistive condition can press the various brands to their limit and beyond, losses can be higher(several db's) than most would be comfortable with. Obviously there are a few ways to think of how a tuner benefits us....mine can be a little lossy and if I were to detect that I am missing contacts perhaps the compromise would be intolerable...glad there are tuners mostly. I have learned how to build my own a good thing to know perhaps. 73
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI,
If it is so important to you to try and bait people to reveal what you want them to, then why don't you just prove what you want us to think you know. Don't say it, prove it. But you don't know anything and you are a liar.
You being a techno bully yourself who is incredibly arrogant and impressed with yourself, your parental style of scolding is a joke, nobody cares what you think, you are just another idiot on the internet playing your games, and you are so insignificant, your impact on anybody or anything is zero. Your ego gets in the way for you to acknowledge it.
Take a hike, you are irrelevant.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One other thing JI,
This person you keep mentioning, I don't know who he is or what past connection you have with him, but I hope you keep making derogatory statements against him. Sooner or later your big mouth may really cross the line, and I hope he sues you into financial oblivion.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JI sez,
<<<<<<The T wins, as Dick points out, when we let the L have optimum component values (it won't match without them) and force the T to have very poor components (it CAN match even with far from optimum values). So long as we do a totally uneven comparison (as Dick did), we can make a poor system look very good or a good system look very bad. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above doesn't make any sense. Let the T tuner have 2000pf capacitors and it still won't work as well as an L tuner. Point of diminishing returns is at about 500pf for a T tuner.
What JI doesn't want to admit is that when you test a tuner at the edges, you see what a tuner really is capable of. A T tuner is as good a tuner as any other when you test in the least difficult range. But when tests at the fringes are done, the T has terrible performance (loss) and the L works very well.
JI criticizes an L tuner with optimum values as unusual. Who buys or makes anything that is made with everything not optimum when its possible. L tuners are built with what they need to operate. A T is as optimized as the L supposedly is with 500pf caps?
What is JI talking about? Answer, more nonsense trying to regain some credibility. He isn't succeeding. And JI doesn't like anyone talking back! Poor baby.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W8JII on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFRF:
This guy is a perfect example of why no one should be allowed to post without a legitimate call sign. It would seem it is impossible for this man to enter into a civil discussion. At this point it makes no difference if the man is correct or not. When one chooses to to act in the manner he has chosen he loses credibility. Be a man HFRF and not a coward hiding behind "HFRF". Use your call!
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by N7WS on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFRF (HFRF claims to be Rick Easton, some searching comes up with a General Class ham, W6MAH, with the same name, FWIW) after having called me at various times a clown, a fool, an idiot, a drunk and someone who needs medication, has been remarkably silent in responding to my worked example that proves that it is he who deserves the adjectives that he so easily threw around. Now it appears that he’s directed his childish tantrums toward Tom.
I will not speak for Tom, as I know he is easily able to do that for himself against this dipstick, but not being one who suffers fools gladly I think it time to pursue the bandwidth issue that he raised.
"BTW---Bandwidth is the change in frequency that changes the swr from 1:1 to 1:1.5."
Because this discussion has been about tuned circuits, it would be more correct to discuss the 3 dB BW of the network when terminated in a designed load.
But Rick wants to discuss SWR BW, which has to include the SWR BW of the terminating load and cannot be considered in isolation.
Unless Rick has an antenna that presents a 5+j0 impedance across some band in question (as in one of his examples) then SWR BW *of the matching network* is meaningless... which coming from Rick, is no surprise.
Since the function of a matching network in the first place is to reestablish a match as the load impedance deviates from 50-ohm, if the matching network is properly designed* it is the load variation that determines the SWR BW and/or how often to re-tune.
For example the network I proposed earlier when designed for 1.9MHz will cover the whole 160-meter band (without retuning) with a worst case SWR of 1.4:1, *if* the load remains 5+j0. If the load varies, as any real antenna will, and the network is not re-tuned then the input SWR will certainly increase but that increase is dominated by the load change.
* A properly designed network in my opinion is a minimum loss network. This normally means the least number of elements that are of the highest Q possible and one that operates at the lowest possible load Q.
Practically speaking this is almost never realizable in practice because of size, aesthetics or cost considerations. So what happens is that the symmetrical layout of the front panel, the cost of higher quality components and a one-size-fits-all topology drives the design. The usual result is lower Q components operated in a higher loaded Q situation, a recipe for trouble.
Personally, I forego all of these worries and don’t use tuners. If the pi-net in my L4B won’t handle the mismatch, it’s time to redesign (or re-tune) the antenna.
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by HFRF on September 15, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I love it. It just drives you people nuts when you can't have something you want badly. You can almost taste it. But sorry to say, you are going to have to suffer. Keep it up, I am really enjoying the freak show. What are you going to do next?. Beg for a call?
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by AB7E on September 16, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It seems pretty obvious that HFRF gets more enjoyment out of anonymously trying to irritate everyone else, much like the infantile lids who generate intentional QRM on a DX station's frequency. Let him soil himself all he wants ... he seems easy enough to ignore.
|
|   |
|
Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by W5SU on September 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've enjoyed the use of my SGC230 with an end fed wire for almost 10 years. There have been occasions during which I experienced the same problem, where it would seem to hunt forever and not find a match. I found a technique that has often helped. If for example, I have difficulty getting a match on 40M, I will change to another band like 15M, get a match, then return to 40M and it works. Because of the harmonic relationship between 15 and 40, maybe it pre-tunes itself somehow? Heck, I don't have a rational explanation but empirically, it often helps.
Carl - W5SU
Dallas TX
|
|   |
|
RE: Autotuner Failure To Match
|
|
|
by G3RZP on September 19, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Somewhat off topic, what is the best 'rule of thumb' for establishing the size of conductor for inductors? At LF we run maybe 2000Amps/sq. inch for small transformers, and maybe 3000Amps/sq inch for open coils. But considering skin effects, we know we need larger conductors at HF, but has anyone any idea of what current density we should use?
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
6-Meter Square Copper Dipole
Wire Antenna in Trees with Crossbow
The 'Lazy 7'
Where Do I Go from Here?
Other Antennas Articles
Wire Antenna in Trees with Crossbow
The 'Lazy 7'
Where Do I Go from Here?
|
|
|