Coax or bifilar choke












4












$begingroup$


Making a common mode choke out of bifilar windings has proven rather difficult. For me the difficulty lies in getting the impedance to remain a constant 50 ohms from on the HF bands. I've tried 14 gauge enameled and I've tried 18 gauge PTFE. The wires seem very sensitive to any kind of change in position.



I've been modeling the choke after the one shown on this tutorial. Also what's the deal with that design? It's like someone took a 4:1 guanella and just cut the connection that makes it 4:1. Turning it into to parallel 1:1 chokes.



Is there any disadvantage to simply using coax windings instead of bifilar? Can I just wrap 11 or 12 turns of RG-316 around a toroid? How much more choking impedance do you get from a bifilar choke?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    Making a common mode choke out of bifilar windings has proven rather difficult. For me the difficulty lies in getting the impedance to remain a constant 50 ohms from on the HF bands. I've tried 14 gauge enameled and I've tried 18 gauge PTFE. The wires seem very sensitive to any kind of change in position.



    I've been modeling the choke after the one shown on this tutorial. Also what's the deal with that design? It's like someone took a 4:1 guanella and just cut the connection that makes it 4:1. Turning it into to parallel 1:1 chokes.



    Is there any disadvantage to simply using coax windings instead of bifilar? Can I just wrap 11 or 12 turns of RG-316 around a toroid? How much more choking impedance do you get from a bifilar choke?










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      Making a common mode choke out of bifilar windings has proven rather difficult. For me the difficulty lies in getting the impedance to remain a constant 50 ohms from on the HF bands. I've tried 14 gauge enameled and I've tried 18 gauge PTFE. The wires seem very sensitive to any kind of change in position.



      I've been modeling the choke after the one shown on this tutorial. Also what's the deal with that design? It's like someone took a 4:1 guanella and just cut the connection that makes it 4:1. Turning it into to parallel 1:1 chokes.



      Is there any disadvantage to simply using coax windings instead of bifilar? Can I just wrap 11 or 12 turns of RG-316 around a toroid? How much more choking impedance do you get from a bifilar choke?










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Making a common mode choke out of bifilar windings has proven rather difficult. For me the difficulty lies in getting the impedance to remain a constant 50 ohms from on the HF bands. I've tried 14 gauge enameled and I've tried 18 gauge PTFE. The wires seem very sensitive to any kind of change in position.



      I've been modeling the choke after the one shown on this tutorial. Also what's the deal with that design? It's like someone took a 4:1 guanella and just cut the connection that makes it 4:1. Turning it into to parallel 1:1 chokes.



      Is there any disadvantage to simply using coax windings instead of bifilar? Can I just wrap 11 or 12 turns of RG-316 around a toroid? How much more choking impedance do you get from a bifilar choke?







      impedance balun choke-balun






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 4 hours ago









      PaulPaul

      1147




      1147






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          In most multi-band balun applications, there is rarely a need to maintain a perfect 50 ohm impedance within the balun. The feedpoint or input impedance is varying widely so another impedance bump in the mix typically has no detrimental effect.



          I highly recommend the use of coaxial wound over bifilar style for a 1:1 balun. Comparatively, the coaxial and bifilar design can be made to have equivalent common mode choking.



          The bifilar style will couple some of the energy traveling on the parallel lines into the core - much like getting a parallel transmission line too close to metal objects. This creates an unnecessary loss and it promotes heating of the core due to the complex permeability of the core material.



          It is also very difficult to fabricate a true bifilar 50 ohm line. The design is so touchy that even minor changes in the wire coating thickness or failure to keep the lines adjacent will cause impedance discontinuities. Due to this marginal construction, the voltage withstand rating of this type of transmission line is much lower than what can be attained through the application of a coaxial transmission line.



          The coaxial wound style will keep all but the common mode current from creating a flux in the core. This is the ideal behavior of a transmission line transformer of this type. Do estimate the losses in this length of transmission line in order to project the effect on core heating. If heating of the core due to coax loss is a design constraint, consider using higher impedance coaxial cable (e.g. 75 ohm) as this will reduce the loss compared to the same size/class of 50 ohm cable.



          Selection of the correct core material is essential. Generally, type 31 is suitable for the lower HF bands and type 43 for the upper HF bands. Look at the complex permeability curves and use a material where the $mu$''s is greater than $mu$'s for the frequencies of interest.



          You may find some practical information regarding the number of turns of coax vs the core material on the G3TXQ (now an SK) site. Here are some examples of his analysis:



          enter image description here



          enter image description here



          The K9YC 2018 Cookbook also features type 31 material balun designs.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
            $endgroup$
            – Glenn W9IQ
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago





















          0












          $begingroup$

          The advantage of using coax for a 1:1 choke-balun is the constant Z0 of 50 ohms. As can be seen in the following graphs, the only time a 1:1 choke-balun accomplishes a 1:1 transformation is when it sees 50 ohms at its output. Any other impedance at the output causes an impedance transformation because the SWR is not 1:1.
          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
            StackExchange.schematics.init();
            });
            }, "cicuitlab");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "520"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13005%2fcoax-or-bifilar-choke%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            5












            $begingroup$

            In most multi-band balun applications, there is rarely a need to maintain a perfect 50 ohm impedance within the balun. The feedpoint or input impedance is varying widely so another impedance bump in the mix typically has no detrimental effect.



            I highly recommend the use of coaxial wound over bifilar style for a 1:1 balun. Comparatively, the coaxial and bifilar design can be made to have equivalent common mode choking.



            The bifilar style will couple some of the energy traveling on the parallel lines into the core - much like getting a parallel transmission line too close to metal objects. This creates an unnecessary loss and it promotes heating of the core due to the complex permeability of the core material.



            It is also very difficult to fabricate a true bifilar 50 ohm line. The design is so touchy that even minor changes in the wire coating thickness or failure to keep the lines adjacent will cause impedance discontinuities. Due to this marginal construction, the voltage withstand rating of this type of transmission line is much lower than what can be attained through the application of a coaxial transmission line.



            The coaxial wound style will keep all but the common mode current from creating a flux in the core. This is the ideal behavior of a transmission line transformer of this type. Do estimate the losses in this length of transmission line in order to project the effect on core heating. If heating of the core due to coax loss is a design constraint, consider using higher impedance coaxial cable (e.g. 75 ohm) as this will reduce the loss compared to the same size/class of 50 ohm cable.



            Selection of the correct core material is essential. Generally, type 31 is suitable for the lower HF bands and type 43 for the upper HF bands. Look at the complex permeability curves and use a material where the $mu$''s is greater than $mu$'s for the frequencies of interest.



            You may find some practical information regarding the number of turns of coax vs the core material on the G3TXQ (now an SK) site. Here are some examples of his analysis:



            enter image description here



            enter image description here



            The K9YC 2018 Cookbook also features type 31 material balun designs.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
              $endgroup$
              – Glenn W9IQ
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago


















            5












            $begingroup$

            In most multi-band balun applications, there is rarely a need to maintain a perfect 50 ohm impedance within the balun. The feedpoint or input impedance is varying widely so another impedance bump in the mix typically has no detrimental effect.



            I highly recommend the use of coaxial wound over bifilar style for a 1:1 balun. Comparatively, the coaxial and bifilar design can be made to have equivalent common mode choking.



            The bifilar style will couple some of the energy traveling on the parallel lines into the core - much like getting a parallel transmission line too close to metal objects. This creates an unnecessary loss and it promotes heating of the core due to the complex permeability of the core material.



            It is also very difficult to fabricate a true bifilar 50 ohm line. The design is so touchy that even minor changes in the wire coating thickness or failure to keep the lines adjacent will cause impedance discontinuities. Due to this marginal construction, the voltage withstand rating of this type of transmission line is much lower than what can be attained through the application of a coaxial transmission line.



            The coaxial wound style will keep all but the common mode current from creating a flux in the core. This is the ideal behavior of a transmission line transformer of this type. Do estimate the losses in this length of transmission line in order to project the effect on core heating. If heating of the core due to coax loss is a design constraint, consider using higher impedance coaxial cable (e.g. 75 ohm) as this will reduce the loss compared to the same size/class of 50 ohm cable.



            Selection of the correct core material is essential. Generally, type 31 is suitable for the lower HF bands and type 43 for the upper HF bands. Look at the complex permeability curves and use a material where the $mu$''s is greater than $mu$'s for the frequencies of interest.



            You may find some practical information regarding the number of turns of coax vs the core material on the G3TXQ (now an SK) site. Here are some examples of his analysis:



            enter image description here



            enter image description here



            The K9YC 2018 Cookbook also features type 31 material balun designs.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
              $endgroup$
              – Glenn W9IQ
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago
















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            In most multi-band balun applications, there is rarely a need to maintain a perfect 50 ohm impedance within the balun. The feedpoint or input impedance is varying widely so another impedance bump in the mix typically has no detrimental effect.



            I highly recommend the use of coaxial wound over bifilar style for a 1:1 balun. Comparatively, the coaxial and bifilar design can be made to have equivalent common mode choking.



            The bifilar style will couple some of the energy traveling on the parallel lines into the core - much like getting a parallel transmission line too close to metal objects. This creates an unnecessary loss and it promotes heating of the core due to the complex permeability of the core material.



            It is also very difficult to fabricate a true bifilar 50 ohm line. The design is so touchy that even minor changes in the wire coating thickness or failure to keep the lines adjacent will cause impedance discontinuities. Due to this marginal construction, the voltage withstand rating of this type of transmission line is much lower than what can be attained through the application of a coaxial transmission line.



            The coaxial wound style will keep all but the common mode current from creating a flux in the core. This is the ideal behavior of a transmission line transformer of this type. Do estimate the losses in this length of transmission line in order to project the effect on core heating. If heating of the core due to coax loss is a design constraint, consider using higher impedance coaxial cable (e.g. 75 ohm) as this will reduce the loss compared to the same size/class of 50 ohm cable.



            Selection of the correct core material is essential. Generally, type 31 is suitable for the lower HF bands and type 43 for the upper HF bands. Look at the complex permeability curves and use a material where the $mu$''s is greater than $mu$'s for the frequencies of interest.



            You may find some practical information regarding the number of turns of coax vs the core material on the G3TXQ (now an SK) site. Here are some examples of his analysis:



            enter image description here



            enter image description here



            The K9YC 2018 Cookbook also features type 31 material balun designs.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            In most multi-band balun applications, there is rarely a need to maintain a perfect 50 ohm impedance within the balun. The feedpoint or input impedance is varying widely so another impedance bump in the mix typically has no detrimental effect.



            I highly recommend the use of coaxial wound over bifilar style for a 1:1 balun. Comparatively, the coaxial and bifilar design can be made to have equivalent common mode choking.



            The bifilar style will couple some of the energy traveling on the parallel lines into the core - much like getting a parallel transmission line too close to metal objects. This creates an unnecessary loss and it promotes heating of the core due to the complex permeability of the core material.



            It is also very difficult to fabricate a true bifilar 50 ohm line. The design is so touchy that even minor changes in the wire coating thickness or failure to keep the lines adjacent will cause impedance discontinuities. Due to this marginal construction, the voltage withstand rating of this type of transmission line is much lower than what can be attained through the application of a coaxial transmission line.



            The coaxial wound style will keep all but the common mode current from creating a flux in the core. This is the ideal behavior of a transmission line transformer of this type. Do estimate the losses in this length of transmission line in order to project the effect on core heating. If heating of the core due to coax loss is a design constraint, consider using higher impedance coaxial cable (e.g. 75 ohm) as this will reduce the loss compared to the same size/class of 50 ohm cable.



            Selection of the correct core material is essential. Generally, type 31 is suitable for the lower HF bands and type 43 for the upper HF bands. Look at the complex permeability curves and use a material where the $mu$''s is greater than $mu$'s for the frequencies of interest.



            You may find some practical information regarding the number of turns of coax vs the core material on the G3TXQ (now an SK) site. Here are some examples of his analysis:



            enter image description here



            enter image description here



            The K9YC 2018 Cookbook also features type 31 material balun designs.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 4 hours ago









            Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ

            16.5k11146




            16.5k11146












            • $begingroup$
              Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
              $endgroup$
              – Glenn W9IQ
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago




















            • $begingroup$
              Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
              $endgroup$
              – Glenn W9IQ
              4 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago












            • $begingroup$
              Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
              $endgroup$
              – Mike Waters
              4 hours ago


















            $begingroup$
            Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Jim has a new PDF revised in 2019, linked to in my comment above.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
            $endgroup$
            – Glenn W9IQ
            4 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @MikeWaters Thanks, Mike but in your link, chapter 7 is not included. My link is his referenced chapter 7 contents specific to choking baluns.
            $endgroup$
            – Glenn W9IQ
            4 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            Yours was the correct one. From Jim: "I no longer recommend coax wound through multiple cores. I'ts simply not practical to wind chokes that way and get anything close to the same result every time -- turns must go through the core in the same order, a scrambled turn cancels a turn, turn diameter matters a lot, and so on. ...
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago














            $begingroup$
            "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            "... The new cookbook uses RG400, 12-2 Teflon/silver pairs, or 12/2 THHN or NM pairs, all tightly wound around a single core. There are recommendations for chokes in series to increase power handling. There is also data for the new 4-in o.d. supersized toroids, which are great for 160M. k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf"
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago














            $begingroup$
            Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            Feel free to incorporate this into your answer, which was emailed to me by Jim (who gave me permission to share it).
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Waters
            4 hours ago













            0












            $begingroup$

            The advantage of using coax for a 1:1 choke-balun is the constant Z0 of 50 ohms. As can be seen in the following graphs, the only time a 1:1 choke-balun accomplishes a 1:1 transformation is when it sees 50 ohms at its output. Any other impedance at the output causes an impedance transformation because the SWR is not 1:1.
            enter image description here






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              The advantage of using coax for a 1:1 choke-balun is the constant Z0 of 50 ohms. As can be seen in the following graphs, the only time a 1:1 choke-balun accomplishes a 1:1 transformation is when it sees 50 ohms at its output. Any other impedance at the output causes an impedance transformation because the SWR is not 1:1.
              enter image description here






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                The advantage of using coax for a 1:1 choke-balun is the constant Z0 of 50 ohms. As can be seen in the following graphs, the only time a 1:1 choke-balun accomplishes a 1:1 transformation is when it sees 50 ohms at its output. Any other impedance at the output causes an impedance transformation because the SWR is not 1:1.
                enter image description here






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                The advantage of using coax for a 1:1 choke-balun is the constant Z0 of 50 ohms. As can be seen in the following graphs, the only time a 1:1 choke-balun accomplishes a 1:1 transformation is when it sees 50 ohms at its output. Any other impedance at the output causes an impedance transformation because the SWR is not 1:1.
                enter image description here







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                Cecil - W5DXPCecil - W5DXP

                76516




                76516






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Amateur Radio Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13005%2fcoax-or-bifilar-choke%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

                    In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                    How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...