Small efficient matching transformer for an EFHW – NEC model at 3.6MHz

The article Small efficient matching transformer for an EFHW laid out a design for a small EFHW transformer.

This article builds an NEC model for an EFHW antenna at 3.6MHz incorporating a realistic model of the above transformer.

NEC provides for a NT card characterising a two port network using Y parameters.

Y parameter model for the transformer

The Y parameter model is based on measured input impedance with port 2 open circuit, and short circuit, and the observed turns ratio.

Impedance was measured with the uncompensated transformer at 3.6MHz using an AA-600, the compensation in the reference article has little effect at 3.6MHz.

Above, the calculated Y parameter model including a prototype NT card. This model captures the various loss components of the transformer, mainly magnetising loss, at 3.6MHz. Continue reading Small efficient matching transformer for an EFHW – NEC model at 3.6MHz

Exploration of feasibility of ground wave comms on 80m VK2OMD-VK1EA

This article is a desk study of the likelihood of ground wave communications over the path VK2OMD-VK1EA, about 150km.

To be useful, S/N needs to exceed 10dB.

Ham mythology has it that ground wave is good for 100km on 80m without much qualification.

Ambient noise

Ambient noise is very important, it is one factor of the Signal / Noise ratio which sets the limit for communication.

Using ITU-R P.368-9 we find that expected median noise figure in a residential precinct at 3.6MHz is 57dB. Continue reading Exploration of feasibility of ground wave comms on 80m VK2OMD-VK1EA

nanoVNA – VSWR in terms of 400Ω

I was asked whether the nanoVNA can display VSWR in terms of 400Ω or some other arbitrary impedance.

Some antenna analysers and VNAs support display of results in terms of some specified impedance other than 50Ω, sometimes only a limited fixed set.

The direct answer to the question is “probably no, not directly on the ‘original’ nanoVNA today”, there are many firmware forks and many PC clients for nanovna, and now many significantly hardware versions appearing. Things may change.

However, if you can save a set of impedance measurements, they can be converted to VSWR relative to some other impedance reference.

An example

At Implementation of G5RV inverted V using high strength aluminium MIG wire – impedance measurements a set of impedance measurements made with a Rigexpert AA600 is presented.

A similar set of measurements could be made with a standalone nanoVNA and saved, but given that it is such a clumsy device and its USB socket has become so unreliable, I will not repeat the measurement but use the data used for the article above.

So we have a table of frequency and (R,X) measured looking into a ‘real’ 450Ω feed line, so we will calculate wrt 450Ω but we could use any reference.

Above is a plot or (R,X) looking into the feed line. Continue reading nanoVNA – VSWR in terms of 400Ω

Annual inspection of antenna reveals balun box issue

During annual inspection of my HF antenna system, I removed the lid from the common mode choke.

AtuBalun202

The choke is housed in a (German) Hensel PS electrical terminal box. Hairline cracks were observed radiating out from one of the terminal screws, and adjacent to both screws in the lid. The lid is obviously not strong enough to be secured by two screws in the way done. Continue reading Annual inspection of antenna reveals balun box issue

Review of W8TEE, AC8GY STL (Radcom Feb 2020)

(Purdum 2020) describes a small transmitting loop (STL) which is a little novel in that it uses an arrangement of four circular conductor loops, two in parallel in series with the other two in parallel.

The article goes on to claim some pretty extraordinary efficiency calculated from radiation resistance for a loop structure that is shown at a height of perhaps 2m above natural ground. Continue reading Review of W8TEE, AC8GY STL (Radcom Feb 2020)

A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #4

The article A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #3 discussed Kurokawa’s power reflection coefficient as in indicator of mismatch at a system node.

Above is a demonstration circuit in Simsmith, a linear source with Thevenin equivalent impedance of 50-j5Ω. The equivalent voltage is specified by useZo, which like much of Simsmith is counter intuitive (as you are not actually directly specifying generator impedance):

Vthev and Zthev are chosen so that ‘useZo’ will deliver 1 watt to a circuit impedance that equals the G.Zo. Zthev will be Zo*.

Continue reading A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #4

The transmitter matching problem

In the article The system wide conjugate match stuff crashes out again I worked through an example proffered in an online discussion to show that Walter Maxwell’s teachings on system wide simultaneous conjugate match do not tend to occur in practical systems.

Why are hams so obsessed with conjugate matching?

The answer is on the face of it quite simple. Continue reading The transmitter matching problem

A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #3

At A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #2 I posed the question of a metric for the mismatch at the L2L1 junction in the following network where the calculated values L2L1_lZ is the load impedance at the L2L1 junction (looking left as Simsmith is unconventional), and L2L1_sZ is the source impedance at the L2L1 junction (looking right). The left three components are the fixed antenna representation.

Common practice is to speak of a “source VSWR” to mean the VSWR calculated or measured looking towards the source, and very commonly this is taken wrt 50+j0Ω which may be neither the source or load impedance but an arbitrary reference. Continue reading A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #3

A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #2

At A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer I posed an unanswered Q2:

Keeping in mind that C2 and L2 are an adjustable matching network, usually adjusted for minimum VSWR as seen at the source G. So, the questions are:

  1. Does the system take maximum available power from the source G when the load impedance seen by source G is equal to the conjugate of its Thevenin equivalent source impedance (ie C2.Z=G.Zo in Simsmith speak)?

  2. Does that ‘matched’ condition result in maximum power in the load L?

Above for reader’s convenience is the model conjugate matched at the GC2 interface. The calculated Po figure (lower right) is the power in the load L to high resolution. Continue reading A thinking exercise on Jacobi Maximum Power Transfer #2