NanoVNA – how accurate does the LOAD need to be – part 1?

A reader of EFHW transformer measurement – how accurate does the load need to be? asked whether the discussion applies more generally, in particular to the loads used for calibration and measurement with a VNA.

In this article, unless stated otherwise, reference to |s11| and ReturnLoss are to those quantities expressed in dB. Note that |s11|=-40dB is less than |s11|=-20dB. ReturnLoss and |s11| are related, ReturnLoss=‑|s11|.

Measurement 1

As a basis for discussion, let me offer an example measurement.

Above is a scan of a certain DUT after SOLT calibration of the NanoVNA. Continue reading NanoVNA – how accurate does the LOAD need to be – part 1?

EFHW transformer measurement – how accurate does the load need to be?

Several articles on this site use the following technique for measurement of transformer performance, and the question arises, how accurate does the load need to be?

Let’s set some limits on the range of ReturnLoss of interest. Measured ReturnLoss is limited by the instrument, and in the case of a VNA, its noise floor and the accuracy of the calibration parts used are the most common practical limits. That said, in practical DUT like an EFHW transformer, would would typically be interested in measuring ReturnLoss between say 10 and 32dB (equivalent to VSWR=1.05) with error less than say 3dB.

There are many contributions to error, and one of the largest is often the choice of transformer load resistor. This article explores that contribution alone.

2% load error

Let’s say the load resistor used is 2% high, 2450+2%=2499Ω. To measure ReturnLoss with such a resistor is to imply that the transformer is nominally  \(\frac{Z_{pri}}{Z_{sec}}=\frac{51}{2499}\) and ReturnLoss should be measured wrt reference impedance 51Ω.

To measure ReturnLoss wrt 50Ω gives rise to error.

Above is a chart of calculated ReturnLoss wrt Zref=51 (the actual ReturnLoss) and Zref=50 (the indicated ReturnLoss) for a range of load resistances, and the error in assuming RL50 when RL51 is the relevant measure. Continue reading EFHW transformer measurement – how accurate does the load need to be?

1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – capacitor loss

An online expert talking about compensation capacitors and EFHW ferrite cored transformers opined:

If the evaluation is done solely by the effect on measured SWR, whether it is measured with a standard reflectometer or a VNA, then it is just as likely the capacitor is changing the losses in the transformer rather than actually adjusting the match.

“Just as likely” + gobbledygook, is this just hand waving on social media?

Let’s explore it using the calibrated model used in a series of articles starting with 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup.

Above is the SimNEC model as calibrated to bench measurement of a prototype transformer. The compensation capacitor Ccomp is specified as 100pF with Q=1000 (reasonable for a silver mica capacitor that is well suited to the application). Continue reading 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – capacitor loss

1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – the magic k factor

An online expert discussing broadband RF transformers recently opined “… if you measure k, the correlation of k and performance is excellent” whatever “performance” means.

Presumably he means k as in the flux coupling coefficient of two flux coupled inductors, ie inductors with mutual inductance (meaning changing current in one inductor induces an EMF in the other inductor). k is the proportion of flux due to current in one inductor that cuts the turns of the other inductor, it is usually stated pu (per unit) but sometimes in % (per cent or per 100).

A common metric for the performance of a broadband transformer is its InsertionVSWR. Other factors might be considered, but InsertionVSWR is commonly most ranked. Note that to describe a transformer as 1:49 implicitly invokes InsertionVSWR as a measure of its performance.

One of the enemies of broadband performance is flux leakage, k less than unity. The equivalent leakage reactance is usually the main contirubutor to high frequency roll off (an increase in InsertionVSWR at high frequencies) in good designs.

Let’s explore the ‘magic’ using the calibrated model used at 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup.

Above is a chart from that model showing: Continue reading 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – the magic k factor

1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – measurement with antenna

This article presents measurements of an EFHW antenna system using the transformer design worked up at 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup and bench measurements at 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – measurement of losses.

The antenna system

Let’s take a system view, component views including bench measurements as reference above are important in qualifying components (eg acceptable Loss), but at the end of the day, the system view is very important. Whilst this section gives a VSWR perspective, it does that in the context of qualified system components.

In this article the antenna system comprises 11m of RG58A/U cable, the transformer described above and 20m of ‘radiator’ wire. This configuration should have a fundamental resonance around 7MHz and support harmonic operation at around 14, 21, and 28MHz.

Note that these type of antenna systems exhibit some amount of inharmonicity, ie the higher modes are not exact integer multiples of the fundamental resonance, there are contributions from both the ‘radiator’ wire, ‘counterpoise’ system and transformer.

Above is the VSWR plot looking into 11m of RG58A/U cable. The VSWR at the transformer jack point will be marginally higher, but this plot is typical of what might be presented to a transceiver. Continue reading 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – measurement with antenna

1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – measurement of losses

Introduction

This article presents a review of a EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core, a pack of 2 for $8 at Jaycar stores (Australia). The LO1238 is a 35x21x13mm Toroid of L15 material (µi=1500). Boxed up, it is probably safely capable of about 5W continuous dissipation.

The design is described at 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup.

Implementation

Above is the internals of VK4MQ’s balun. I would not use the pink PTFE tape, the balun core is extremely low conductivity and it is doubtful the tape helps. Continue reading 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – measurement of losses

1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup

Introduction

There are several articles on this site describing EFHW transformers using the Jaycar LO1238 toroid, two particularly relevant ones are:

This article presents a design workup of a EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core, a pack of 2 for $8 at Jaycar stores (Australia). The LO1238 is a 35x21x13mm Toroid of L15 material (µi=1500). Boxed up, it is probably safely capable of about 5W continuous dissipation.

I will use the meanings explained at On insertion loss.

The design was developed in a SimNEC model which models a EFHW transformer, and can be calibrated against measurements of implementations. This helps evolve the model and develop some experience for likely values for leakage inductance etc. Continue reading 1:49 EFHW transformer using a Jaycar LO1238 core – design workup

K3EUI’s MyAntennas EFHW on 80m

Barry, K3EUI, posted some interesting measurements of his MyAntennas EFHW which he described with some useful detail:

I have been experimenting with a “MYANTENNA” 130 foot long “end-fed” with the 49:1 UNUN*

I replaced their 130 ft antenna wire with a heavier gauge #12 stranded insulated wire (I had a few hundred feet).*

This is classified as a ONE-HALF wavelength antenna on 80m, hence the need for the 49:1 UNUN to transform 50 ohm (coax) to a few thousand ohms*

It has resonances on the other ham bands (harmonically related) but I wanted it mostly for 80m.

One leg runs about 60 ft horizontally to a tree and then the next 70 ft makes a 90 degree bend (to fit into my yard) still horizontal.*

At this time I removed a 15 ft “counterpoise” wire on the GND side of the UNUN.

I will try it later this week (after the snow) as a “sloper” or an Inverted V up to a tall fir tree.

It is only about 20 ft above ground now (with 4 inches snow) for NVIS prop, and fed with 70 ft of RG213 coax (50 ohm) with a RF choke on the coax feed line 10 ft from UNUN (the counterpoise?) and another RF choke just as the coax enters the shack.

His VSWR curve is interesting, a minimum at source end of about 1.32 @ 3.66MHz as built and measured.

Minimum VSWR is about 1.32 @ 3.66MHz. Continue reading K3EUI’s MyAntennas EFHW on 80m

MismatchLoss of severely mismatched EFHW transformer – system response

It is easy to become focused on the behavior of a component, but don’t lose sight of the fact that it is but a component of a system where components interact, and the system response is the bigger / more complete picture.

In the article MismatchLoss of severely mismatched EFHW transformer , a caveat stated and restated was:

Transmitters are not necessarily well represented as a Thevenin source, so measurements using such sources (VNA, SA with TG) and application of linear circuit theory are not necessarily applicable.

So, can we estimate a likely system response to a 30+j0Ω load, good 1:49 transformer and modern HF 100W (20dBW) SSB transceiver designed for a nominal 50Ω load?

The following analysis gives a likely solution and it deals with a common implementation where the source is anything but a Thevenin source.

PA VSWR protection

Most transceivers of this type incorporate several PA protection measures, and one of them is commonly to reduce IF gain so that reflected power measured in a directional coupler near the antenna jack is not more than say 4W. This accommodates VSWR up to 1.5 without power reduction due to VSWR protection.

So, with an extreme mismatch, Pref=4W due to the PA protection system.

30+j0Ω load via an ideal 1:49 transformer

The scenario of 30+j0Ω load if that of the quoted measurement in the previous article, used without comment on its merit.

Lets use the calculation from the previous article, the equivalent case of a 50Ω Thevenin source with load of (30+j0)/49=0.6122+j0Ω.

The quantity 1/(1-|s|^2) is the MismatchLoss, \(MismatchLoss=\frac{P_{fwd}}{P_{fwd}-P_{ref}}=\frac1{1-\frac{P_{ref}}{P_{fwd}}}\) and it is 20.92, so we can calculate that if Pref=4w (by virtue of PA protection), that \(P_{fwd}=\frac{P_{ref}}{0.952}=\frac4{0.952}=4.202 \text{ W}=6.235 \text{ dBW} \). Continue reading MismatchLoss of severely mismatched EFHW transformer – system response

MismatchLoss of severely mismatched EFHW transformer

In an social media discussion about loss of EFHW transformers under mismatch conditions, one of the gathered experts said:

It doesn’t even have to be highly complex Z. Just presenting an impedance other than 2450 sends the loss through the roof. The back to back transformer test is misleading unless the antenna presents something very close to 2450 on each band for which it is used.

giving this graphic to quote someone else’s work in support.

Interpreting this graphic is fraught with risks, the author obviously does not understand and accept / follow the conventional meaning of term loss. Continue reading MismatchLoss of severely mismatched EFHW transformer