Call Search
     

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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 6:1 balun  (Read 17291 times)
CT1FKC
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« on: December 29, 2002, 10:56:07 AM »

does anyone have plans for winding a 6:1 balun with toroids. I am planing to use one with a  Windom antenna.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 21636




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2002, 12:50:09 PM »

You didn't say what frequency or power level, but if you use a suitable ferrite material and large enough core to handle the power you run, just wind 5 turns for the secondary and 2 turns for the primary, on the same form, and you have a balun with a 6.25:1 impedance ratio (5/2, squared).  That's close enough, and what most people do, to make a "6:1 balun."

I usually use Teflon-insulated #12 gauge wire and a very large core (2" I.D.) to avoid saturation for KW-level transmitting; for lower power levels, obviously both smaller gauge wire and a smaller core will do.  The wire should be insulated with something (good enamel coating, as a minimum).  I like using stranded-conductor, Teflon-insulated wire because it's very tough and almost impossible to wear through even with long-term vibration.

WB2WIK/6
Logged
CT1FKC
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2002, 12:22:26 PM »

thank's for the reply.
I am planning to build it for 10 20 and 40m, and for 100w power level.
I presume a T200-2 or FT200-43 work fine for that level.
I'll try it with an antenna analyzer, with a resistive load first to take some conclusions.
73 and Happy New Year.
Logged
AD6JN
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2003, 03:56:16 PM »

Get a copy of "Building and Using Baluns and Ununs" by J. Sevick.

I recently build a 6:1 (6.24:1) series balun described in chapter 5.  It consists of a 1.56:1 Unun and a 4:1 Balun.  I used 3 toroids F140 mix 61.

1 toroid is for the 1.56 Unun and 2 are for the 4:1 balun.

For 100 watts you can use 20 and 22ga. wire.  The 1.56 unun will be 5 turns quintufilar (20ga. magnetic wire) and the two 4:1 balun coils will be 15 to 17 turns (22ga).  Use TFE on the 4:1 leads with a TFE spacer in the center of the bifilar.  You can use TFE stranded wire and strip some TFE insulation off some wire for the center TFE spacer.  Each coil of the 4:1 must be close to 150 ohms as it is in parallel at the input (75 ohms) and in series at the output (300 ohms).

When testing with the analyzer terminate the balun with a 312 ohm rersistor and plot VSWR versus Log Frequency.  The VSWR should be very flat over the range you defined.

Good luck 73.

Bob AD6JN

 
Logged
N6AJR
Member

Posts: 9930




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2003, 03:33:47 AM »

try http://www.buxcommco.com/  he has a super plan for a windom antenna there and even will sell you the 4 to 1 balun if you need it.. he also has lots of other goodies..tom N6AJR
Logged
CT1FKC
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2003, 07:36:00 PM »

for what all you have post it seems to me that windom antenna is the best solution for me. not only because it is simple, but also because I can perform some tests with my antenna analyzer about the balun.
and since I am still recovering from a small surgery it will be easy to install.
thank you and good DX.
Logged
ZS6JMB
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2016, 12:06:21 AM »

I know this is an ancient post, but it was exactly what I was looking for. I'm a brand new ham so bear with me if this is a dumb question

I'm wondering if a 6:1 balun should actually be wound like this with a tap, rather than WB2WIK's simple solution. It occurred to me that maybe that simple solution isn't actually a balun. I know it's a transformer and takes care of the impedance matching, but does it take care of the balanced antenna vs unbalanced coax side of things, ie does it prevent the feed from being part of the antenna? If it does take care of that, why would anyone use the complication of the tap at turn 9 of 11 as shown in the link? Is that link's autotransformer method of incorporating the primary in the secondary and having the mid-point of the secondary as the connection to the coax shield, significant?

(It would be feasible to make WB2WIK's (5:2)2 = 6.25:1 solution more precise with (22:9)2 = 6:1 but that's a  detail....)

Is WB2WIK's solution really a balun or is it only an impedance matcher?
Logged

73,

Jim ZS6JMB
Johannesburg KG43at
UTC+2
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2016, 05:00:38 AM »

I know this is an ancient post, but it was exactly what I was looking for. I'm a brand new ham so bear with me if this is a dumb question

I'm wondering if a 6:1 balun should actually be wound like this with a tap, rather than WB2WIK's simple solution. It occurred to me that maybe that simple solution isn't actually a balun. I know it's a transformer and takes care of the impedance matching, but does it take care of the balanced antenna vs unbalanced coax side of things, ie does it prevent the feed from being part of the antenna? If it does take care of that, why would anyone use the complication of the tap at turn 9 of 11 as shown in the link? Is that link's autotransformer method of incorporating the primary in the secondary and having the mid-point of the secondary as the connection to the coax shield, significant?

(It would be feasible to make WB2WIK's (5:2)2 = 6.25:1 solution more precise with (22:9)2 = 6:1 but that's a  detail....)

Is WB2WIK's solution really a balun or is it only an impedance matcher?

I believe you are in the wrong forum for this type of question. This forum is about antenna restrictions due to covenants and home owners association, not the design of antennas. Good luck with your search for an answer.
Logged
ZS6JMB
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2016, 05:35:59 AM »

I believe you are in the wrong forum for this type of question.

Fully agree, but I'm just latching onto the existing question to which mine is a supplementary. This way, the original posters might see my add-on, and respond.

But you're right: I'll post in a more suitable forum with a link to this so others can see the original suggestion.

EDIT... I've posted the same question here so any responses should rather go there. Thanks to WB2KSP for pointing out this is the wrong forum. In my defence, the thread was here already Wink
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 05:51:01 AM by ZS6JMB » Logged

73,

Jim ZS6JMB
Johannesburg KG43at
UTC+2
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 491




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2016, 08:34:39 AM »

I believe you are in the wrong forum for this type of question.

Fully agree, but I'm just latching onto the existing question to which mine is a supplementary. This way, the original posters might see my add-on, and respond.

But you're right: I'll post in a more suitable forum with a link to this so others can see the original suggestion.

EDIT... I've posted the same question here so any responses should rather go there. Thanks to WB2KSP for pointing out this is the wrong forum. In my defence, the thread was here already Wink

Not a problem and thank you for understanding my meaning. You as well as everyone with an opinion on the subject are always welcome to participate. You don't need to defend yourself. I just thought you'd like to post in a forum which could give you an answer to your question. Thanks again.
Logged
ZS6JMB
Member

Posts: 7




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2016, 08:13:20 PM »

You don't need to defend yourself.

Nice to know, thanks.... in many forums, you DO need to....
Logged

73,

Jim ZS6JMB
Johannesburg KG43at
UTC+2
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!