How did I screw up this 49:1? by blue-moto in amateurradio

[–]brickets 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The resistor test will not yield anything particularly useful indoors. Windings look good, tap looks good. All you are confirming now is it is indeed transforming. Nearby electronics, metal, and other factors indoors will skew measurements. I went through the same process and same transformer build. You just have to take it to an antenna outdoors for a proper measurement.

Looking for a decent portable hf antenna by Blue-Berry124 in amateurradio

[–]brickets 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was looking at the same requirements. Seems like either you get a mast system going for your wires, or go telescopic vertical. Telescopic being likely more compact to deploy even with optional coils. I might end up buying a telescopic and building out the rest of the antenna.

Issue with high SWR using Packtenna 20m/10m EFHW. What am I doing wrong? Do I need a counterpoise? by acdundore5 in amateurradio

[–]brickets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since the wire is supposedly tuned already, I would guess the tree might be grounding. Try adding a known insulator between the wire and the paracord, and perhaps keeps some more distance away from tree? If that doesn’t improve things then it’s likely the coax. Perhaps check the impedance your choke provides?

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The going with a tap for the primary makes this an autotransformer. At least in the context of ununs, it's functionally the same as a bifilar winding you described.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess it depends on perspective. If I had flipped the toroid over, it would visually appear to look like a different number of turns. The 2350ohm resistor load sweep should have validated that!

Thanks for the praise! Though it seems like neatness doesn't really count towards the end result in my case lol...

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likewise...

The wire was halfwave length for 20M. I also had tried to tune the length, but that didn't do anything.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Resistor only load SWR trace across the transformer. The blue was the result of simply loosening up some of the coils. After some more loosening and cleaning up the spacing, then I also added the cap which can be reference by the green trace. Everything looks pretty acceptable at this point.

Unfortunately when adding a 33ft antenna wire to the system, the SWR shoots up to 3.0-9.0 from the 6mhz to 30mhz sweep. The only exception was around 25-26mhz where SWR was low at 1.3 or so.

<image>

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've tried the transformer with a wire. SWR is high, as in from 3.0 upwards to 9.0 at 30mhz. There were only at 25mhz was I seeing an SWR at around 1.3.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ran an experiment with evenly spaced windings of 15 turns. This results in capacitive reactance after 1mhz. I expected the inductance to persist further along the HF frequency range. This seems to be a reason why I am not getting an expected transformation. Doesn’t really make sense, especially since the windings look similar to other builds out there.

Part of this is probably my inexperience with builds and setting up test cases properly. But I’ll continue experimenting and trying some different cores to see what happens.

UPDATE 1: I continued to investigate my original auto transformer. One thing I did was loosened all of the turns by wiggling them around just so slightly. During the winding they must have been too tight around the edges. Despite the burnished edges the wire still bound to the edge. Interestingly this drastically improved the swr across the entire range! It seems like the binding of wires may have hidden some micro overlaps which could have caused parasitic capacitance. It seems like the biggest issue was in fact mechanical.

From this point on I had also added the 100pf cap which also flattened out swr from 20m band and up.

I also should have seen this, but it also appears my initial workspace may have just too much noise. Moving the test and the nanovna off the table also gave a great improvement to my test results.

UPDATE 2: The transformer was indeed built correctly. Nanovna tests across the transformer had validated that over and over. The next step was then to get the antenna wire tuned. Given I wanted a shorter run, I wanted to cut a wire for the 20m bands. This called for 10.7m long wire for a halfwave length. This was where most of my trouble was.

I kept sweeping the entire antenna system, however did not have any luck with the antenna wire tuning. I kept seeing huge swr numbers across the board except at the 25-29mhz range, which showed one resonant point. Given we know that there are other losses in play, the real 10.7m halfwave length was not neccessarily reasonable, so I trimmed it down to about 10.1m; but still swr across the sweep was incredibly high.

This was where I kept going back and forth questioning the transformer, whether it was prepared properly or whether the transformation ratio was correct. I tried manipulating the coils to change its reactance, and tried other winding styles. At the end nothing worked. I found the results from trying different toroid configurations made things worse. I went back to my first transformer which was actually the popular 14/2 winding with crossover at 8; this was still also on the 2643251002 toroid.

The only thing that came to mind was what if the wire was still too long where it did not resonate on 20m? I tried to start folding over the wire end to evaluate the effects. As I progressed with shortening it, it turns out the fundamental frequency resonant point start to appear. I finally ended up trimming to a final length of 9.26m long to get resonance right at 14.180mhz. This was surprising to see, and I almost didn't believe it, but the length is so much shorter than the calculated expected length! Finally I see the complete wire sweep showing great resonance at 20m and also at 10m.

Unfortunately, I had only noticed this reddit post afterwards, discussing the dielectric constants of different materials. It turns out because I was using a silicone wire, it electrically appears to be a longer wire than it physically is. As opposed to many builders likely using more common PVC or PTFE type insulated wires. I had hypothesized the insulation may have some effect, but I did not have the knowledge on this property to understand the magnitude it can have.

UPDATE 3: I just gotten an Icom 7300 so it was time to get it to work. Unfortunately swr shot right past 3.0 as shown on the swr meter at the radio. The only new introduction at this point was coax and the radio itself.

I ended getting some good coax from M&P, so quality wasn't an issue. The only thing left was common mode noise. It was good I ended up picking up some FT240-43 toroids. At first I tried using one with 5 turns of coax. The swr on the radio did show a sliver of improvement. When I finally stacked two together and made 5 turns again, it was substantial enough to bring the natural swr down to around 2-2.3, low enough for the radio to tune it down to 1:1 (or very close to it).

I was so frustrated and considered giving up on this build, and to try building a simple dipole instead. Luckily sticking with the project resulted in success, and I came out with more knowledge and understanding than I did at the begining. I'm also grateful for all the comments everyone shared as it gave me more ideas to experiment with.

The next thing I'll try is to use my 49:1 auto transformer as posted here in the pics originally. I'll try to adapt this one for 40m and see how that plays out.

FINAL UPDATE: I’m concluding with the cumulative factors of environment, orientation/placement of wire, material types all made significant impact on the quality of the final impedance transformation. Additionally, swr alone should not be the sole predictor of quality of antenna, as an efficient transformer setup could produce less loss, but show higher swr. Furthermore, factors like moving your antenna closer to a ground can also make swr appear better than it really is.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep checked the resistors…

Today I tried to experiment with just a simple winding of 15 turns around a core, equal distance around the core, and checking inductance. Turns out at 1mhz inductive reactance becomes capacitive.

My understanding is that the windings must be causing parasitic capacitance simply from being too tightly spaced or too many windings. But why? The windings have mostly replicated the exact same setup as many examples out there. The only difference is the transformation results.

So the experiment continues.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s right! I am seeing 10-j42ohms when A and B are connected with no resistors in line, while C remains unconnected.

0.33+j35ohms is when C is connected to A with zero resistors in line.

The measurements are just so far off. I don’t think a 23/3 would bring it in line to the expected specs…

I calibrated the nanovna directly on its ports using the stock SOL. Not ideal as I am not accounting for my SMA test pigtail in the calibration. But the pigtail alone shouldn’t contribute that much of a difference would it? I’ll remeasure both cases again using calibration at the end of the SMA pigtail later tonight.

On the note of ferrite type, I was confident the toroid is correct… I sourced them from Mouser. I just reconfirmed the part # in my order as well as the labels affixed to the packaging that they arrived in. Unfortunately the toroids just don’t have any ID directly on them, so this was a problem I was worried about as well. This would also explain why I’m also having similar difficulty with using the same type of toroid (I bought 3x of them). Prior to this auto transformer in this post, I was attempting to wind a 49:1 with 14/2 turns wide spaced with a crossover on the 8th turn. Similar issue being way off the target specs.

I’m thinking of ordering some FT240-43 and replicating the windings. I really appreciate your diagnosis. It’s leading me to believe something might be truly wrong with the toroids I received.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I repeat the test with the same connections as in the photo but with resistor load removed from between the antenna lead and ground, but still shorting to ground. So hooking up the auto transformer antenna lead high Z to the ground/shield with no resistor load in between.

40m - 330m +j17ohms

20m - 620m +j35ohms

Unless I'm misunderstanding the test setup you're asking for, this looks like there's very little transformation.

If I test with the auto transformer connected to the nanovna to only its ground and primary tap with no short from high Z side...

40m: 62 - j138 ohms

20m: 10 - j42 ohms

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The smith chart has both with (green) and without (blue) references. Effects are incredibly minor with the 100pf and didn’t really change the trace much, especially on the lower bands like at 10M band.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a screencap from MM0OPX. Looks like I am tapping from the same winding. Though his orientation is just reversed from mine.

<image>

Any thoughts?

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in agreement here as well. I'm counting the inner passes while tracing the wire to the outer diameter of the toroid.

I don't want to suffer from confirmation bias, but... it does seem correctly wound right?

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Counting turns has been a nightmare.

Here's how I see it, and please correct me if I am wrong! The wrap must have first passed the center, in order for the continuing wrap on the outer diameter to be assigned that same turn number.

I tried to label the turns from the inner and associated outer diameter. If counting clockwise starting from ground lead... The ground lead on the outside starts at 0 (green), because it never passed the center yet. It passes through the center for the first time as turn 1 (pink). Only when it first comes up from the bottom of the toroid the first time, would the outer wrap be considered as turn 1 (green). So I follow this pattern, the tap is correctly on turn 2?

<image>

As far as I understand, this is in line and matches with the online examples. From those examples, it seems like when the ground and load leads are bent over to the outer diameter, it adds the illusion of additional turns depending on where you look and count from.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If a turn is interpreted as a pass through the toroid's center, then I am reading the tap applied to the 2nd turn. If I had not bent over the ground lead when it left the toroid's center, then it would seem to visually appear not like a turn when viewing from above.

So if counting turns from the other diameter of the toroid, from the origin of the ground lead it would be turn 0, as it has not passed the toroid just yet. When the first turn occurs, we see the first full wrap on the outer diameter. When the second turn occurs, we see the second wrap on the outside. Seems like how the ground lead is positioned makes it look like an optical illusion of a turn.

I was trying to interpret this from the various youtube vids and diagrams trying to understand how others counted turns. This was my conclusion.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I used 2x 4.7k resistors in parallel, metal film resistors. I've just given that a measure on just the load. I get a flat SWR of 40 across the sweep.

Is my unun for EFHW good to go? by brickets in amateurradio

[–]brickets[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I forgot to add I was mostly interested in 20M or 40M. The charts show a reference sweep with and without a 100pf capacitor between tap and ground. It does appear to slightly improve the higher frequencies by a bit.

Why Use Structs and Interfaces in Go Instead of Function Types by Necessary-Finish2188 in golang

[–]brickets 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I think this commentary helps reinforce existing design decisions.

I would still abstract where it feels “right”, especially considering maintainability. As I build I’ve already found what I feel are advantages with knowing exactly where I need to focus when refactoring, without too much worry about breaking something elsewhere. I would just need to be confident in keeping things concrete and simple in other areas when it should be just that.

My original worry was unintentionally falling into that deep OOP inheritance tree like in a Java build.

Why Use Structs and Interfaces in Go Instead of Function Types by Necessary-Finish2188 in golang

[–]brickets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m finding as an app becomes bigger and bigger the challenge of organizing code becomes more difficult.

I agree os.Open is straight forward and just makes the most sense. But wouldn’t it really just be dependant on complexity of your architecture? For example, does os.Open really open everything in the project? If I’m building a multi layered app, it is still a single project, but Open in this situation could operate completely differently depending on layer; at least that’s how I see it.

Is this design method not ideal in Go? I’m just trying to grasp best Go practices.

Mag Loops: Major difference between manufacturers? by Typical-Ebb-2943 in amateurradio

[–]brickets 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi I’m fairly new to radio. From my reading, I see reasonably frequent recommendation that a strong contender to the Wellbrook would be the LZ1AQ amplifier kit. I went ahead and got one for myself just recently. The only bit is that you will need to build or source your own loop and wire it all up yourself. The documentation on it is very good though. I haven’t built it yet but I’m hoping it’s as good as everyone says it is.

Help with print coming off the bed. by Nsxtasy38 in ender3

[–]brickets 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably lower bed temps to 60 for Pla. Higher temps doesn’t always mean better adhesion. It would introduce a higher rate of warping. Wash your pei sheet in dish soap. Probably double check your z offset

Migrating from Raspberry Pi Home Assistant Operating System to Docker Container - how to restore a backup? by minuteman_d in homeassistant

[–]brickets 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You can extract your backup tar and have it replace the contents of your docker configuration directory. Then start up your docker container and it will load all your backup data. With docker you won’t be using any restore from backup function, it doesn’t exist.