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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: #4115ocf OCF Dipole Balun from Balun Designs?  (Read 2776 times)
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« on: June 04, 2012, 10:37:10 AM »

I have an OCF Dipoole and I'm reasonably happy with it. I want to replace the balun at some point.

My question is, this balun is highly rated on eham reviews, but has anybody had any experiance in replacing an OCF dipole balun with the #4115ocf ?

I'm looking for first hand reports of a comparison between this balun and some generic OCF dipole that someone had up in the same location.

I know they are very well built, but can someone tell me that this design is actually superior to a genric balun with ferrite choke beads on the coax?

http://www.balundesigns.com/servlet/the-75/OCF-balun-4-cln-1/Detail

thanks in advance.
Logged
N4NYY
Member

Posts: 4746




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2012, 10:55:10 AM »

I do not have the OCF. However, I have the standard dipole balun with the pull I-bolt. Top notch stuff. Works like a charm. I cannot imagine the OCF being any less effective or qualify.
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2012, 10:57:47 AM »

I do not have the OCF. However, I have the standard dipole balun with the pull I-bolt. Top notch stuff. Works like a charm. I cannot imagine the OCF being any less effective or qualify.

thanks.  I have two of their baluns.  the quality is top knotch.  I'm wondering if someone can tell me if the desgin of a dual core is electrically better than a standard core and and 5 to 8 ferrite choke beads placed at the end of the coax next to the balun?

thanks.
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2012, 11:35:30 AM »

Walter in a short and sweet answer yes the two core balun is better.  It basically a pair of 1:1 baluns connected to make a 4:1 balun. And it is a good design. Slipping 5 to 8 beads over the end of coax is not going do very much. A 1:1 balun could be made this way but i think you going need more beads .   
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2012, 11:44:06 AM »

Walter in a short and sweet answer yes the two core balun is better.  It basically a pair of 1:1 baluns connected to make a 4:1 balun. And it is a good design. Slipping 5 to 8 beads over the end of coax is not going do very much. A 1:1 balun could be made this way but i think you going need more beads .   

good deal.  I just ordered one.  I assumed it was, but sometimes assumptions aren't a good thing.  Grin

My concern was the weight.  those ferrite beads get heavy.  this balun isn't light, but should be lighter than a balun plus 8 ferrite beads.

I would still love to hear from people who have used this balun as a replacement and how happy they are with it.

thanks
Logged
G8JNJ
Member

Posts: 485


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2012, 04:42:10 AM »

Hi Walter,

You may find that when you change the existing balun for a new one, you will need to change the length of the radiating elements and feedline in order to achieve the same 'resonant' frequencies. Especially if you are substituting a Ruthoff 'Voltage' 'balun' for a Guanella 'Current' balun, or vice versa.

This is because the Ruthoff 'voltage' 'balun', which is commonly used for OCFD’s or 'Carolina Windom' has very little common mode current rejection. So the feeder becomes part of the antenna. In the case of the 'Carolina' Windom this is advertised as a virtue of the design. As radiation from the feeder is used to fill in some of the nulls in the polar diagram on the higher frequency bands. Providing a more Omni-directional pattern.

However when you use a Guanella 'Current' balun, with its improved common mode current rejection. The amount of feeder radiation may be reduced, and as a result the impedance measured at the base of the feeder section will also be modified. As the feeder plays less of a part in the overall radiating structure.

There are some things to watch out for here. The purpose of using a balun is to minimise current imbalance on the feeder, reduce common mode currents from flowing and hence minimise feedline radiation. The best way to do this is to use a balanced antenna to start with, then improve it still further by using a Guanella 'Current' balun.

When you use a Guanella 'Current' balun with an OCFD a lot of additional stress is put on the core material, because such a large amount of common mode current is already present. So if you intend to use the antenna with a tuner, or on bands where the resistive choking impedance of the balun is low. Make sure you choose a design with plenty of margin in terms of power handling.

This is why many commercial  OCFD antennas and antenna tuners use a Ruthoff 'voltage' 'balun' as the lack of common mode current rejection (which is why I hesitate to call such devices a 'balun') means that the stresses the balun core are subjected to are much smaller. Making such devices almost indestructible. Especially if they are made using Iron powder core material. This offers very little resistive impedance and will recover if overheated, unlike ferrite core materials.

It is very difficult to design a Guanella 'Current' balun with a sufficiently high value of resistive common mode choking impedance. Greater than 1K Ohm (ideally it should be at least 5K Ohm) across the required frequency range of say 1.8 to 30MHz. If you are lucky you may achieve 5K Ohm across about 1/3 of the range and 1K Ohm over the remaining 2/3. Personally, I've only just about been able to achieve this in practice after a lot of difficulty. But I've never been happy with the performance of several OCFD's I've used them with. As I've not been able to achieve sufficiently good enough common mode current rejection to turn what is inherently an unbalanced antenna into a balanced one.

My existing antenna is a 90' doublet with 450 Ohm line feed, and a 1:1 Guanella 'Current' balun and auto-tuner at the base of the vertical feeder section. I can quickly add an additional 45' section to one side of the doublet, by means of a jumper cable. This converts it into a 135’ OCFD. This theoretically should have better performance on the low bands. However 99% of the time I leave it configured as a doublet. As the RX noise floor on the LF bands is much lower with the balanced antenna, and the very slight (about 1dB) increase in TX gain when configured as an OCFD is not really noticeable. 

However you mileage may vary……………

Regards,

Martin - G8JNJ

www.g8jnj.webs.com
Logged
W8ATA
Member

Posts: 320




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2012, 09:09:11 PM »

I currently have three Balun Designs baluns in use and a couple in reserve for future projects. I use the dual core on my OCF. There seems to be no argument that these baluns are of superior construction using quality cores and Teflon insulated wire. For an OCF make sure you get the correct one. If your feed point will be in the 40-45 feet range get the 4:1. Up in the 60' range Bob Rumsey recommends the 6:1. I recall that his website covers that. I just purchased one his recent designs for my 80-40 vertical. It has a 1-1 layered core and provides optimum choking impedance in that frequency range.

The old saying that you get what you pay for is true of Balun Designs. A few bucks more for the comfort that you likely won't fry it is worth it.

73 and best to you,
Russ
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2012, 03:49:44 PM »

Hi Walter,

You may find that when you change the existing balun for a new one, you will need to change the length of the radiating elements and feedline in order to achieve the same 'resonant' frequencies. Especially if you are substituting a Ruthoff 'Voltage' 'balun' for a Guanella 'Current' balun, or vice versa.

This is because the Ruthoff 'voltage' 'balun', which is commonly used for OCFD’s or 'Carolina Windom' has very little common mode current rejection. So the feeder becomes part of the antenna. In the case of the 'Carolina' Windom this is advertised as a virtue of the design. As radiation from the feeder is used to fill in some of the nulls in the polar diagram on the higher frequency bands. Providing a more Omni-directional pattern.

However when you use a Guanella 'Current' balun, with its improved common mode current rejection. The amount of feeder radiation may be reduced, and as a result the impedance measured at the base of the feeder section will also be modified. As the feeder plays less of a part in the overall radiating structure.

There are some things to watch out for here. The purpose of using a balun is to minimise current imbalance on the feeder, reduce common mode currents from flowing and hence minimise feedline radiation. The best way to do this is to use a balanced antenna to start with, then improve it still further by using a Guanella 'Current' balun.

When you use a Guanella 'Current' balun with an OCFD a lot of additional stress is put on the core material, because such a large amount of common mode current is already present. So if you intend to use the antenna with a tuner, or on bands where the resistive choking impedance of the balun is low. Make sure you choose a design with plenty of margin in terms of power handling.

This is why many commercial  OCFD antennas and antenna tuners use a Ruthoff 'voltage' 'balun' as the lack of common mode current rejection (which is why I hesitate to call such devices a 'balun') means that the stresses the balun core are subjected to are much smaller. Making such devices almost indestructible. Especially if they are made using Iron powder core material. This offers very little resistive impedance and will recover if overheated, unlike ferrite core materials.

It is very difficult to design a Guanella 'Current' balun with a sufficiently high value of resistive common mode choking impedance. Greater than 1K Ohm (ideally it should be at least 5K Ohm) across the required frequency range of say 1.8 to 30MHz. If you are lucky you may achieve 5K Ohm across about 1/3 of the range and 1K Ohm over the remaining 2/3. Personally, I've only just about been able to achieve this in practice after a lot of difficulty. But I've never been happy with the performance of several OCFD's I've used them with. As I've not been able to achieve sufficiently good enough common mode current rejection to turn what is inherently an unbalanced antenna into a balanced one.

My existing antenna is a 90' doublet with 450 Ohm line feed, and a 1:1 Guanella 'Current' balun and auto-tuner at the base of the vertical feeder section. I can quickly add an additional 45' section to one side of the doublet, by means of a jumper cable. This converts it into a 135’ OCFD. This theoretically should have better performance on the low bands. However 99% of the time I leave it configured as a doublet. As the RX noise floor on the LF bands is much lower with the balanced antenna, and the very slight (about 1dB) increase in TX gain when configured as an OCFD is not really noticeable. 

However you mileage may vary……………

Regards,

Martin - G8JNJ

www.g8jnj.webs.com


thanks!

This is the design (they recommend for this balun)  that I'm planning on using.

http://www.balundesigns.com/OCF%20Antenna.pdf
Logged
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2012, 03:50:52 PM »

I currently have three Balun Designs baluns in use and a couple in reserve for future projects. I use the dual core on my OCF. There seems to be no argument that these baluns are of superior construction using quality cores and Teflon insulated wire. For an OCF make sure you get the correct one. If your feed point will be in the 40-45 feet range get the 4:1. Up in the 60' range Bob Rumsey recommends the 6:1. I recall that his website covers that. I just purchased one his recent designs for my 80-40 vertical. It has a 1-1 layered core and provides optimum choking impedance in that frequency range.

The old saying that you get what you pay for is true of Balun Designs. A few bucks more for the comfort that you likely won't fry it is worth it.

73 and best to you,
Russ

Yes its going up with the balun at about 30 feet.  The ends will be slightly higher.  I realize thats not the best way to hang it but for my yard that about as good as it gets.

thanks again!
Logged
K7KBN
Member

Posts: 2782




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2012, 04:56:20 PM »

With most dipoles, there's inevitibly SOME center sag.  You'd have to exert a whole lot of pull on the ends to get rid of it -- more than most copper wire can take.

Anybody asks, just tell them "The antenna is a double-inverted vee...".  Grin
Logged

73
Pat K7KBN
CWO4 USNR Ret.
WALTERB
Member

Posts: 528




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2012, 09:27:06 PM »

With most dipoles, there's inevitibly SOME center sag.  You'd have to exert a whole lot of pull on the ends to get rid of it -- more than most copper wire can take.

Anybody asks, just tell them "The antenna is a double-inverted vee...".  Grin

funny.

I don't like to put too much tension on the line.  if both trees blow in the same direction and the same time, no problem. its when one blows one way and the other blows the other. Thats when I expect to have a big problem.   Grin

Logged
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!