[AMRadio] Re:Balanced Line Antenna Tuner


Barrie Smith barrie at centric.net
Thu Sep 22 22:28:14 EDT 2005


Don:

If you are talking about a "true" balanced antenna tuner, with link coupling 
and dual-differential output caps, and NO Baluns, you are not likely to 
achieve 160 through 10.

I built a monster true-balanced tuner a few years ago for 160 through 40M. 
With the components required for the lower bands it will go no higher.

You might get 80 through 10M.

Tale a look at Cebik's website.  He has a great deal of information on 
balanced antenna tuners.

73, Barrie, W7ALW
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald R. R Moore" <wa5ffk at juno.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: [AMRadio] Re:Balanced Line Antenna Tuner


>I want to construct a balanced line antenna tuner to cover 160-10 meters,
> does any one have any good ideas on one, and where a diagram can be
> obtained.
>
> Thanks,
> Don W5FFK
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:12:24 -0400 (EDT) amradio-request at mailman.qth.net
> writes:
>> Send AMRadio mailing list submissions to
>>         amradio at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         amradio-request at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         amradio-owner at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of AMRadio digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Collins  filter (Rivpapa1 at aol.com)
>>    2. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (bcarling at cfl.rr.com)
>>    3. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (ronnie.hull)
>>    4. RE: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (Brett gazdzinski)
>>    5. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (Geoff)
>>    6. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (bcarling at cfl.rr.com)
>>    7. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (ronnie.hull)
>>    8. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (ronnie.hull)
>>    9. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (Geoff)
>>   10. Re: Pi-Net vs Link Couple (Geoff)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:19:26 EDT
>> From: Rivpapa1 at aol.com
>> Subject: [AMRadio] Collins  filter
>> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
>> Message-ID: <bd.60841fd0.3063c30e at aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>>
>> I am looking for the 6.0khz  filter..Pt #  F-455-J60.. for the
>> Collins 75A4
>> Reciever...Tnx Ron W6MAU
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:37:13 -0400
>> From: bcarling at cfl.rr.com
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <43325F29.9989.91003D at localhost>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2005 at 21:45, Geoff wrote:
>>
>> > I've heard recently that matching the output of the Class C
>> > pate-modulated final to the antenna is better, and more efficiently
>>
>> > achieved by link coupling, vs Pi-Net.
>>
>> Where did you hear that?
>>
>> > On the other hand, it's argued
>> > that Pi-Net coupling produces less RFI than link coupling does.
>> >
>> > So, which is better?
>>
>> Pi Network.
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> I can only tell you from my own experiences, that a) You already
>> answered the foirst part - less harmonics, and
>> B) you get more power out.
>>
>> That is enough to persuade me.
>>
>> I know some folks swear by link coupling.
>> I swear at it!
>>
>> I had an Eldico rig once with an 807 final.
>> I could only get about 15 watts out with the link coupling.
>> I re-confiugred it to be a pi network and immediately had
>> no diifficulty getting about 35 watts out.
>>
>> Now some may argue that the link coupling circuit wasn't
>> made right, wasn't adjust right etc. etc. I don't care about
>> that.  I just like pi networks.  If  it was good enough for
>> Art Collins...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:53:13 -0400
>> From: "ronnie.hull" <ronnie.hull at glowbugs.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: "Mike Dorworth, K4XM" <k4xm at arczip.com>,        Discussion of AM
>> Radio
>>         <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <20050922115313.M14136 at glowbugs.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>>
>> Mike I'm the fellow that is going to build up a Class C final using
>> a 450TL.
>> I would love to get a copy of that schematic for the 450TH rig in
>> the Editors
>> and Engineers handbook. I have a few of those, but apparently, not
>> that one.
>>
>> I have a very nice B&W 850A or 852 that I can use in this rig.
>> Either should
>> handle that tube fine, considering I'm not going to run much more
>> than 2500
>> volts on it anyway. Maybe 3000.
>>
>> I just got the worled biggest honker daddy plate transformer from
>> W5OMR.
>> 8200V center tapped ( 4100 - 0 - 4100 ) at 4.5KVA !!!  Yeah suh,
>> takes 3 men
>> and a dolly to move it!!
>>
>> This will be a fun project.
>>
>> 73's & batten down the hatches, here comes Rita..
>>
>> W5SUM
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From: "Mike Dorworth,K4XM" <k4xm at arczip.com>
>> To: "Discussion of AM Radio" <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:10:59 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>>
>> > The Pi-Net will give a total of 50 db suppresion of harmonics.
>> about
>> > 20 in one spot and 30 in the other. Link couple can pass harmonics
>>
>> > to VHF by capacity coupling, hence the Faraday Shield Links used
>> for
>> > same later on. There is a nice single 450th Pi-Net rig shown in
>> the
>> > Editor and Engineers handbook. Also a couple of single ended ones
>> in
>> > the 1950 ARRL Handbook (for triodes).  Some triodes that require
>> > lots and lots or drive can unbalance the grid tank, which is
>> > required for triodes using Pi-Net. Lo capacity tubes like the
>> 450th
>> > is OK. The old timers mostly used tuners (antenna) and open wire
>> > feeders to keep the harmonics down. Hazletine link neutralization
>>
>> > can also be used and no split tanks are needed in or out. Remember
>>
>> > Class C , which is required for Hi level AM, is a extreme
>> distortion
>> >  and harmonic generator so that some plan need to be in place to
>> > handle the soup. Also a single band dipole is very frequency
>> > selective and cuts way down on harmonics by itself. Multiband
>> > dipoles, beams and multi dipole on one feeder and traps etc (G5RV)
>>
>> > are an open invitation to spread gook with only link output. Also
>>
>> > the guys that use CB lin years with no half wave filters get away
>> in
>> > mobile service without too many problems  due to the narrow
>> > frequency discrimination of mobile antennas. Hope this helps, 73
>> Mike
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Geoff" <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
>> > To: "Discussion of AM Radio" <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:45 PM
>> > Subject: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> >
>> > > SO, here we are, well past 1991 and the 'law' that went into
>> effect
>> > > saying that 1,500w PEP output is the maximum RF Power output
>> that we
>> > > hams can run, regarldless of mode.  That doesn't deter the
>> homebrewing
>> > > spirit, but it does suggest that acheiving 1,500w PEP output is
>> much
>> > > easier than producing 1kW DC input to the final.  With the
>> mindset of
>> > > still wanting to use the classic high-level plate modulation
>> scheme,
>> > > engineering a rig to use only one tube in the final (a 4-250,
>> 250TH,
>> > > 304TH/TL, 4-400, etc), modulated by a pair seems to make more
>> common
>> > > sense.  That, and it's a bit more economic in filament
>> requirements.
>> > >
>> > > I've heard recently that matching the output of the Class C
>> > > pate-modulated final to the antenna is better, and more
>> efficiently
>> > > achieved by link coupling, vs Pi-Net.  On the other hand, it's
>> argued
>> > > that Pi-Net coupling produces less RFI than link coupling does.
>> > >
>> > > So, which is better?
>> > >
>> > > Why?
>> > >
>> > > What are the effects of nuetralizing a single tube in a balanced
>> tank
>> > > circuit?  If Pi-Net is to be used, does the final tube still
>> need to be
>> > > nuetralized?
>> > >
>> > > I know of a guy who wants to build a rig using a single 450TL in
>> the
>> > > final, modulated by a pair.  He wants to pi-net the output, but
>> I've
>> > > heard that's a bad idea.
>> > >
>> > > I want to build a rig using a medium powered tride, perhaps a
>> 250TH,
>> > > modulated by a pair of 811's.  Pi-Net, or Link Couple?
>> > >
>> > > I like seeing this kind of technical discussion on the list.
>> I'm
>> > > looking forward to all inputs.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > 73 = Best Regards,
>> > > -Geoff/W5OMR
>> > >
>> > > ______________________________________________________________
>> > > AMRadio mailing list
>> > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> > > Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>> > > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
>> > > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>> > >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> > AMRadio mailing list
>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> > Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>> > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
>> > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:13:51 -0400
>> From: Brett gazdzinski <Brett.gazdzinski at mci.com>
>> Subject: RE: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: 'Discussion of AM Radio' <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <000801c5bf6f$1820e050$a5b220a6 at mcilink.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> I don't think there is any way to run a triode single ended with
>> link
>> coupled
>> output, not in class C.
>>
>> I run a pair of 812A's (or 811A's, or V70D's) push pull link coupled
>> output
>> modulated by a pair of 811A's.
>> It works very well.
>>
>> You can run them up to 2000 volts on the plates, or 1750, 0r 1500.
>>
>> I can get 400 watts carrier out pushing them, 350 watts out has the
>> tubes
>> showing no color.
>>
>> That is very close to the legal limit with plenty of audio.
>>
>> The 812/811 tubes are cheap, work from 1000 to 2000 volts, and
>> don't take up a lot of space.
>>
>> I used small vacuum variable caps for neutralization, kilowatt
>> coils, and a 6000 volt plate tuning cap.
>> I got the small (2 to 30 pf @30,000 volts) neut caps out of old
>> paging
>> transmitters someone gave me, they ran a 4-400 at 3000 volts on 70?
>> MHZ.
>>
>> Brett
>> N2DTS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Geoff
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:46 PM
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio
>> Subject: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>>
>>
>> SO, here we are, well past 1991 and the 'law' that went into effect
>>
>> saying that 1,500w PEP output is the maximum RF Power output that we
>>
>> hams can run, regarldless of mode.  That doesn't deter the
>> homebrewing
>> spirit, but it does suggest that acheiving 1,500w PEP output is much
>>
>> easier than producing 1kW DC input to the final.  With the mindset
>> of
>> still wanting to use the classic high-level plate modulation scheme,
>>
>> engineering a rig to use only one tube in the final (a 4-250, 250TH,
>>
>> 304TH/TL, 4-400, etc), modulated by a pair seems to make more common
>>
>> sense.  That, and it's a bit more economic in filament
>> requirements.
>>
>> I've heard recently that matching the output of the Class C
>> pate-modulated final to the antenna is better, and more efficiently
>>
>> achieved by link coupling, vs Pi-Net.  On the other hand, it's
>> argued
>> that Pi-Net coupling produces less RFI than link coupling does.
>>
>> So, which is better?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> What are the effects of nuetralizing a single tube in a balanced
>> tank
>> circuit?  If Pi-Net is to be used, does the final tube still need to
>> be
>> nuetralized?
>>
>> I know of a guy who wants to build a rig using a single 450TL in the
>>
>> final, modulated by a pair.  He wants to pi-net the output, but I've
>>
>> heard that's a bad idea.
>>
>> I want to build a rig using a medium powered tride, perhaps a 250TH,
>>
>> modulated by a pair of 811's.  Pi-Net, or Link Couple?
>>
>> I like seeing this kind of technical discussion on the list.  I'm
>> looking forward to all inputs.
>>
>> --
>> 73 = Best Regards,
>> -Geoff/W5OMR
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> AMRadio mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
>> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:22:16 -0500
>> From: Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <4332A1F8.6000907 at satx.rr.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> ronnie.hull wrote:
>>
>> > <>Mike I'm the fellow that is going to build up a Class C final
>> using
>> > a 450TL.
>> > I would love to get a copy of that schematic for the 450TH rig in
>> the
>> > Editors
>> > and Engineers handbook. I have a few of those, but apparently, not
>>
>> > that one.
>> >
>> > I have a very nice B&W 850A or 852 that I can use in this rig.
>> Either
>> > should
>> > handle that tube fine, considering I'm not going to run much more
>> than
>> > 2500
>> > volts on it anyway. Maybe 3000.
>> >
>> > I just got the worled biggest honker daddy plate transformer from
>> W5OMR.
>> > 8200V center tapped ( 4100 - 0 - 4100 ) at 4.5KVA !!! Yeah suh,
>> takes
>> > 3 men
>> > and a dolly to move it!!
>>
>>
>> I think you're going to find, and we talked about this, that the
>> transformer is 4100v across the entire secondary (@4.74kVA)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:41:26 -0400
>> From: bcarling at cfl.rr.com
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <43326E36.30967.CBCA1A at localhost>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> On 22 Sep 2005 at 7:22, Geoff wrote:
>>
>> > > I just got the worled biggest honker daddy plate transformer
>> from W5OMR.
>> > > 8200V center tapped ( 4100 - 0 - 4100 ) at 4.5KVA !!
>>
>> > I think you're going to find, and we talked about this, that the
>> > transformer is 4100v across the entire secondary (@4.74kVA)
>>
>> Yeah but 8200 volts sounds so... electrifying!
>>
>> If anyone needs a smaller tranny, I have one that will do 2500 volts
>>
>> at about 1 amp.
>>
>> Brian, AF4K
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:05:28 -0400
>> From: "ronnie.hull" <ronnie.hull at glowbugs.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <20050922130528.M40836 at glowbugs.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> well it clearley shows on the top of the tranny 4100 - 0 - 4100..
>> I'll test
>> it out this weekend and we'll know then.
>>
>> did you ever even put power to this transformer?
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From: Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:22:16 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>>
>> > ronnie.hull wrote:
>> >
>> > > <>Mike I'm the fellow that is going to build up a Class C final
>> using
>> > > a 450TL.
>> > > I would love to get a copy of that schematic for the 450TH rig
>> in the
>> > > Editors
>> > > and Engineers handbook. I have a few of those, but apparently,
>> not
>> > > that one.
>> > >
>> > > I have a very nice B&W 850A or 852 that I can use in this rig.
>> Either
>> > > should
>> > > handle that tube fine, considering I'm not going to run much
>> more than
>> > > 2500
>> > > volts on it anyway. Maybe 3000.
>> > >
>> > > I just got the worled biggest honker daddy plate transformer
>> from W5OMR.
>> > > 8200V center tapped ( 4100 - 0 - 4100 ) at 4.5KVA !!! Yeah suh,
>> takes
>> > > 3 men
>> > > and a dolly to move it!!
>> >
>> > I think you're going to find, and we talked about this, that the
>> > transformer is 4100v across the entire secondary (@4.74kVA)
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> > AMRadio mailing list
>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> > Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>> > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
>> > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:06:33 -0400
>> From: "ronnie.hull" <ronnie.hull at glowbugs.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <20050922130633.M99469 at glowbugs.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> well Bry, you gotta unnerstand, I'm next door to Texas, that makes
>> me a
>> cousin.. and you know how they are in texas.. everything is
>> bigger!!!
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From: bcarling at cfl.rr.com
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:41:26 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>>
>> > On 22 Sep 2005 at 7:22, Geoff wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I just got the worled biggest honker daddy plate transformer
>> from
>> W5OMR.
>> > > > 8200V center tapped ( 4100 - 0 - 4100 ) at 4.5KVA !!
>> >
>> > > I think you're going to find, and we talked about this, that the
>>
>> > > transformer is 4100v across the entire secondary (@4.74kVA)
>> >
>> > Yeah but 8200 volts sounds so... electrifying!
>> >
>> > If anyone needs a smaller tranny, I have one that will do 2500
>> volts
>> > at about 1 amp.
>> >
>> > Brian, AF4K
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> > AMRadio mailing list
>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> > Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>> > AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
>> > AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:01:35 -0500
>> From: Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <4332B93F.6090008 at satx.rr.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> ronnie.hull wrote:
>>
>> > <>well it clearley shows on the top of the tranny 4100 - 0 -
>> 4100..
>> > I'll test
>> > it out this weekend and we'll know then.
>> >
>> > did you ever even put power to this transformer?
>> >
>> > R
>>
>>
>> Yes, I did.  Did it at John/WA5BXO's place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:03:49 -0500
>> From: Geoff <w5omr at satx.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Pi-Net vs Link Couple
>> To: Discussion of AM Radio <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>> Message-ID: <4332B9C5.4060507 at satx.rr.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> ronnie.hull wrote:
>>
>> > <>well Bry, you gotta unnerstand, I'm next door to Texas, that
>> makes me a
>> > cousin.. and you know how they are in texas.. everything is
>> bigger!!!
>> >
>> > R
>>
>>
>> Bry, just on the Off-chance that I might make it to Florida, what
>> are
>> you asking for that 2500v @ 1amp xfmr?
>>
>> --
>> 73 = Best Regards,
>> -Geoff/W5OMR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> AMRadio mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>>
>>
>> End of AMRadio Digest, Vol 20, Issue 33
>> ***************************************
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> AMfone Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AM List Admin: Brian Sherrod/w5ami
>
> 





More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 20 Oct 2017.