Re: Fire In The Wire

Jim Upson
 

Yes...I personally think it makes sense - as I stated 1000’s if hams use Type 43 for matching units....so I can’t believe it is a bad choice...just maybe not as optimal as it can be....

However.....as I want to reiterate....I am not technically skilled....but I believe KX0R is very technical (see his QRZ page)......so I wanted to share his thoughts in case others had not seen it...and to get your feedback....so THANK YOU for the response!

Once I build a Type 43 and a KX0R version I am hoping some power meter results and RBN spots will confirm the level of effectiveness differences....maybe it will be subtle....maybe significant....time will tell. :-)

Again....I am open to all solutions at this point....not sure what’s Josh is interested in trying...

THANK YOU for your comments....it does help me learn as I go...

73, Jim/ AC3B 


On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:16 PM John <ve3ips@...> wrote:
Jim

what shall we use if 43 is no good?   I learned a lot from your post and maybe i will just stick with a dipole to keep it ya'll ya'll simple simple

I also spent a lot of bench time working with type 43 and 61 transformers. Type 43 is so lossy that it’s hard to measure a resonant frequency in a tuned circuit. It’s really designed for broadband transmission line transformers and EMI suppression chokes. It’s not a good choice for conventional transformers. Many of the people posting here don’t seem to know what these terms mean. I would not use type 43 to feed the antenna in my SOTA systemThe reason some antennas use it is that its loss hides the mismatch errors in the system! It lowers SWR by adding loss  


John VE3IPS

Ham Radio is a lifestyle not a Hobby!
Take the radio outside and operate from the Field




On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:36 AM Nick Kennedy <kennnick@...> wrote:
Boy, a lot of good info in there Jim. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together.

One point I'll take a bit of an issue with is the suitability (or not) of ferrites such as type 43 for antenna matching transformers.

It's true that the Q can be as low as 1 at HF which can make one wonder how it can possibly be good for anything other than a choke at those frequencies. But it can. My explanation is that most of the losses are core losses caused by the flux in the core. But in a transformer with a high coupling coefficient, flux in the core is minimized and such losses are not excessive.

Your source suggested that with his allowance for transmission line transformers but I think it can be true for conventional transformers and autotransformers as well, although maybe not to the same extent.

Measurements should tell the tale. I did some with FT-114-43 transformers designed for EFHW matching a few years ago  and see losses on the order of 1 dB for 40 through 20. Not negligible but not prohibitive either.

The huge crowd of users of the currently popular homebrew version of the MyAntennas EFHW are using large diameter ferrite cores such as FT-240 to reduce losses as well as handle more power. They've also transitioned from type 43 to type 52 which does lower losses some more. 

Getting back to the original poster - I like the EFHW for field operations because it only needs one support. I'm a total klutz when it comes to getting lines through trees. I also like the Jackite pole (31') as a support.

73,

Nick, WA5BDU

Join main@4SQRP.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.