# A Smith chart view of EFHW transformer compensation

I have written several articles on design of high ratio ferrite cored transformers for EFHW antennas.

Having selected a candidate core, the main questions need to be answered:

• how many turns are sufficient for acceptable InsertionVSWR at low frequencies and core loss; and
• what value of shunt capacitance best compensates the effect of leakage inductance at high frequencies?

Lets look at a simplified equivalent circuit of such a transformer, and all components are referred to the 50Ω input side of the transformer. Above is a simplified model that will illustrate the issues. For simplicity, the model is somewhat idealised in that the components are lossless.

• L1 represents the leakage inductance;
• L2 represents the magnetising inductance; and
• C1 is a compensation capacitor.

So, it is obvious that the InsertionVSWR curve is pretty poor at both high and low end.

Let’s look at a Smith chart presentation of the same information, it is so much more revealing. Above is the Smith chart plot. Remember that the points go clockwise on the arc with increasing frequency, and that InsertionVSWR is a function of the distance from the centre to the point on the locus… we want to minimise that distance. Remember also that the circles that are tangential to the left had edge are conductance circles, they are the locus of constant G.

Now lets analyse the response.

### Low end

Note that from 1 to 3MHz, the shape of the response tends to a circle tangential to the left hand edge, it a constant G circle. So, G is constant but susceptance B is frequency dependent and -ve. This the the response of a constant resistance R in parallel with a constant inductance ($$B=\frac {-1} {2 \pi f L}$$, $$Y= G + \jmath B = \frac 1 R – \frac {\jmath} {2 \pi f L}$$). A part of that susceptance (shunt inductance) is due to the magnetising inductance L2 which contributes to the poor Insertion VSWR at low frequencies.

### High end

Note that from 12 to 15Hz, the shape of the response tends to a circle tangential to the left hand edge, it a constant G circle. So, G is constant but susceptance B is frequency dependent and +ve. This the the response of a constant resistance R in parallel with a constant capacitance ($$B=2 \pi f C$$, $$Y= G + \jmath B = \frac 1 R + \jmath 2 \pi f C$$). A part of that susceptance (shunt capacitance) is due to the compensation capacitor C1 which contributes to the poor Insertion VSWR at high frequencies.

### Optimised

Lets adjust L2 and C1 for a better InsertionVSWR response. Above is the response with L2=12µH and C1=80pF. Note that the distance to the centre is improved (and therefore InsertionVSWR is improved). The kink in the response is common, that is typically the mid region where InsertionVSWR is minimum.

It is still not a good response, the InsertionVSWR at the high end is too high, and compensation with C1 does not adequately address the leakage inductance. So, as a candidate design, this one has too much leakage inductance which might be addressed by improving winding geometry and increasing core permeability.

### Real transformers

As mentioned, real tranformers using ferrite cores have permeability that is complex (ie includes loss) and dependent on frequency (ie inductance is constant). Above, the magenta curve is measurement of a real transformer from 1-11MHz with nominal resistance load and three compensation options:

• cyan: 0pF, too little compensation;
• magenta: 80pF, optimal compensation; and
• blue: 250pF, to much compensation.

It should be no surprise that 80pF is close to optimal. Susceptance B at the cyan X is -0.00575S, and broadly, we want to cancel that with the compensation capacitor so we come so $$C=\frac{B}{2 \pi f}=\frac{0.00575}{2 \pi 11e6}=83pF$$.

With optimal compensation (80pF in this case) The insertionVSWR at 3MHz is 1.8, probably acceptable for this type of transformer but it is still quite high (4.3) at 11MHz, which hints that leakage inductance needs to be addressed by improving winding geometry and possibly increasing permeability.

Keep in mind that measurements with a nominal resistive load are a guide, measurements with the real antenna wire are very important.