4:1, 6:1 or 9:1?

Thinking back and forth a bit, again on aerials, I came to the conclusion that using 75Ohms feedline some 4:1 would be appropriate.
But why?!

The developers at Diamond thought that for the BB6W, or the BB7V for good measures, a 6:1 transformation would be the way to go. This aerial design assumes a 50Ohms feedline. The aerial's feedpoint is therefore considered having an impedance of 300Ohms. Remember, in this design, there is 600Ohms of termination resistor to ensure a maximum SWR of 2:1.

Assuming that the average auto-ATU will match a transmitter's 50Ohms antenna connector to a 75Ohms feedline easily, a 4:1 transformation will do in order to match a feedpoint impedance of 300Ohms when using 75Ohms feedline.
This actually brings together good news from two worlds:

1. 75Ohms coax cable has got less losses than 50Ohms coax (it is cheaper too)
2. a 4:1 transformer is easier to make than a 6:1 transformer (QRP: old TV-xformers)

So, now what about the 9:1 UnUn that so many use with endfed aerials? Personally, I used a 9:1 transformer with 50Ohms feedline. The 450Ohms feedpoint impedance works with endfed wires, about as good as 450Ohms window line (using a suitable ATU).

As a side remark, the feedpoint impedance at the voltage maximum is considered to be 5kOhms. Neither window line nor a 9:1 transformer gets us there. This can only be matched using ladder line (or open wire line) with a symmetric coupler.

Kizomba, the Name of the Game

Hi folks,
this is completely off topic.You may have wondered why I am sooooo slooooow writing technical articles, well, there are some reasons. One of them reasons being, I am much more into dancing once again... and kizomba is the name of that game. Some may already know that I am severely into mambo dancing, this remains. For those of you readers that are into dancing, check out kizomba, aka. African tango. The dance is from Angola, the music is a mix of French creole "zouk" and Angolan "semba".
Dear fellow ham radio operators, there is more to life than a microphone or a Morse key. Get out, get social enjoy life, also on the dance floor!
BTW, WCS (West Coast Swing) is cool too! Go for it, grab a girl and off you go!

Surplus RF-Transformers for Random Wire Antennas

In some of my last posts I was sharing thoughts about broadband aerials using transformers to match the high impedance of the non-resonant "random" wire. Well, the leghth of those wires is not that random at the end. Some typical lengths that come to my mind 6m, 7m, 7.5m, 11.5m, etc. you may know some more...

Now, let's have a look at some options provided by surplus (the junk box respectively).

CFL bulb transformer  vs.  surplus iron powder toroid

On the left side we have a transformer that was in a (defective) CFL bulb, aka as energy-saving light. The thing on the right side is one of the is a surplus transformer based on a T68-2, which came in bags of 5pc for just 0.80 €-cents.

So, what do we have, the CFL transformer countd 3:3:12 windings. Using the black and the white in series, that would be 6:12. This would be, in other words, be a fine 9:1 UnUn.

The T68-2 is provided with 12 bifilar windings. This would therefore make you average 4:1 UnUn. Obviously, those can also be 1:1 isolation transformer.

Both junk-box items are proven in ham-radio designs. I figure, I will experiment with both out of the box options. Additionally, I may possibly try a 6:1 UnUn, as in the BB6W/BB7V design. Staying at QRPP levels would even offer the change of trying the termination resistor used in the BB6W/BB7Vs.
Oh, I forgot, to get closer to the BB7V, I will add some additional Al-pipe to top of the 5.5m  long 27MHz vertical.

Half-wave 27MHz Antenna as Broadband Vertical

Years and years ago, a friend of mine gave me a (brand new) half-wave CB antenna. Well, I have never used it, for the reason of not being QRV on 11m. For 10m I had my double bazooka, so there was no need for it. Now that it has been sitting in a corner for a while, I thought, maybe it could be useful for something else. Some else as in broadband vertical...

Now, let's have a look how those things are built:

aerial schematics

This drawing is not made by me, however, it nicely sketches what the following photographs of my very own version of that antenna show.

all still in one part

taken apart

What we have is the cavity and the transformer that was sitting in it. The air core transformer has got a winding ratio of 7.5:2. I figure, using a ferrite or iron powder toroid would improve performance on lower frequencies.
The cavity measures 35mm in diameter, having a depth of 24mm. This clearly offers enough space to house a smaller toroid transformer.

At this place, I would like to remind you of the BB7V (Diamond) having an UnUn transformer with (resistive) termination shunt. This vertical would be 6.7m tall. The regular 11m half-wave vertical could possibly be stretched to a tallness somewhat beyond 5.5m. Close enough to me.

Now let's think... for QRP work a T80-2 would make an ok UnUn. With some luck, transformers with a T130-2 core could possibly be squeezed in the cavity, if made carefully.
Reconsidering the BB7V's terminator, would I put one in there? Only if I would be using this aerial for QRPp only. The base of the CB-aerial is made from plastics material, which is not able to conduct any heat. Hence, heat created inside the cavity would never be dissipated. For QRSs/QRPp, the resistive terminator is a very appealing option, in particular since for such power levels, a T50-2 transformer would offer sufficient empty space for the terminator.
A T130-2 would possibly be good for a regular 100W rig. However, in a worst case, 50W of heat have to be dissipated, hence, some cooling of the termination would be required, therefore, this is a no-go. Some adjustments and selective use of bands would still be an option for such an arrangement.
Personally, I am very tempted to try a version of a T68-2 transformer (not sure about termination yet), in combination with my IC-703. This is somewhat of a compromise...
Should I ever again get into QRPp/QRSs/WSPR/WSJT/ROS actively, my preference would be the small transformer&terminator option.

Additionally, I figure, it could be of use to add an additional Al-pipe of about one meter to the top of the vertical. This will result in a total length of about 6.4m and a further distance to a quarter-wave on 20m, without getting too close to a quarter-wave on 30m.

There you have it, a new life for a cheap half-wave 11m vertical.

455kHz SDR - a second thought

My previous blog was all about the idea of adding a softrock, or any other simple SDR-DC-RX, to a cheap (synthesized) AM radio. Well, honestly said, when thinking of it, this may be a totally unnecessary overkill.
Why? Well, very simple. The main purpose of all the quadrature stuff is to make the two sidebands that a DC-RX receives different. But, what if there is not other sideband? The following may not apply to the absolute cheapest of AM-receivers.
Concerning the ATS-404, I have ambiguous information. While some technical data mention the AM i.f. being 450kHz, the schematics diagram mentions a LT455H, which is a 455kHz ceramic filter having +/-3kHz 6dB bandwidth (+/-9kHz for attenuated bandwidth). If we tap before that filter, we definitely need quadrature, should we however tap the i.f. behind that filter, a non-quadrature SDR would be OK too.
Most of the better world-band receivers use a first i.f. somewhere high with a relatively wide crystal filter. Most of the narrow filtering is done at 455kHz. In this case, we probably wont need quadrature at all. All we have to do is to ensure that our SDR center frequency (or SDR-l.o.) falls close to but outside the range of the intermediate frequency range. In such a scenario, there would not be a second sideband to care about and also a simple mono-audio interface would already do the job.
The Target HF3 would be an example for such a receiver. The first i.f. is at 45MHz having a bandwidth of +/-3.75kHz. The second i.f. band would consequently be 455-3.75=451.25 to 455+3.75=458.75 kHz. In yesterday's example, using a 1.8432Mhz local oscillator, we ended up at an SDR center frequency of 460.8kHz, which is close but outside the HF3's second i.f. band. A regular direct conversion receiver with a local oscillator at 460.8kHz would therefore receive only a lower side-band, since there is no signal in its upper side-band.
My idea would be to try that out using a canned oscillator and two flip-flops for frequency division. With some isolation amplification a singled ended diode mixer and a cheap USB audio adapter should round up that experiment.

ATS-404 idea

Using the second intermediate frequency, often at 455kHz, is widely known. A suitable I/Q-SDR would be based on a 1.8432MHz (canned) oscillator, resulting in a 460.8kHz center frequency. Assuming a 24k sample rate, would be adequate to cover the range from 450 to 460kHz perfectly.

Many I/Q-SDR kist are available, due to the size and the low price, the softrock lite could be suitable best.

So, why the ATS-404. I was looking for a relatively cheap wide coverage receiver having direct frequency entry. The 5kHz tuning steps on shortwave suit the 10kHz wide SDR just fine.
The ATS-404 uses the TA8132AN AM/FM-receiver IC. This IC has go the advantage of providing an IF-out at pin 9 (see data-sheet). Slight downside: the TA8132 employs a 450kHz intermediate frequency...
A service manual for the ATS-404 can be found here:
 http://www.thiecom.de/ftp/sangean/ats404/

The remaining question... where to put the I/Q-SDR? Using a softrock lite, one may consider using the battery compartment. Speaking of battery, the radio runs of 4 AA cells. It can also be operated from 6V external power. I wonder if 5V from a USB-port would be sufficient, finally, the idea is to use a computer for the SDR anyway.
Which brings me to the last idea... a cheap (stereo!) USB-sound-interface could also be accomodated in the battery compartment, so that only connection would be a USB cable to the computer.

PFR-3 with W5JH paddles

BB6W / BB7V clones for QRSS

If you browse the wide of the internet on the hunt of information about Diamond's BB6W or BB7V, you will most likely come across some images and blogs. One of the most helpful blogs, in my view, is Martin's ECLECTIC AETHER. The link points to the actual article....
As to images, for me, the image found here: http://www.cqcqde.com/shop/88_108.html is most informative.

Referring to Martin's blog, it seems that the "matching" device actually is a 6:1 UnUn ferrit toroid transformer with a 600Ohm (120W) termination resistor. The aerial being rated 250W, this means that up to 50% or 3dB of power is burnt in said resistor. The bandwidth of the aerials is mentioned to be 2Mhz to 30MHz.
Martin mentions the inferior performance of the 6:1 UnUn the why it was wound in the original BB6W. To my believe there is actually some thought in this. Japan, that where the aerial comes from, is a very noisy, QRM that is, country. Hence, Diamond seems to have decided to compromise power coupling versus common mode noise by reducing the capacitive coupling between the windings.

My interpretation of this aerial comes close to a short end-fed random wire, which is broadened by a sort of termination known from aerials like the T2FD, with a twist however.
Here is what I believe is interesting about the concept. Usually end-fed random wires are used in combination with 9:1 UnUn transformers, which result in a feed point impedances of 450Ohms. The BB6W matching unit however transforms to 300Ohms only, where the termination is twice that. Obviously, one does not want 300Ohms of termination, that would just form a dummy load...

So, what we got here is a short broadband aerial, horizontal or vertical in which half the power is absorbed.
In QRO, the tricky bit is the non-inductive resistor. It is doable, and certainly to a lower price than Diamond sells the aerials.
In QRSS, which essentially is QRPP, we are not troubled by the problem mentioned above. In fact, we could use a regular 1/4W carbon resistor and still we would be fine.

Two things came to my mind

1. use a 9:1 UnUn with a 900Ohms resistor
2. use an air-core (auto-) transformer

Further, I would use a longer radiator to improve performance on 80m and allow for 160m. A low horizontal broadband aerial for 80m and 40m could be an interesting solution for NVIS operations on modes other than QRSS.
It would also not be too difficult to build a termination resistor being good for 10W or so....

Last thing, what way of winding the UnUn would be most appropriate? You decide... Diamond's way would provide you with less RX-QRM, Martin's method would pass more TX-power to the wire.

XPware was made freeware!

XPware is freeware now! It runs under WinXP (have not tested any other win-flavor).
http://www.glaswerks.com/xpware/

It can talk to the following controllers (test myself):

• Kantronics KAM(+)
• AEA PK900
• SCS PCT+
• SCS PTCIIe

The handling of the software depends on the respective controller.

I did those tests on the grabber pc, which in parallel was running one instance of winamp, two instances of spectrum and argoupload. Since modern PCs are not equipped with serial ports anymore, USB2Serial cables were used. All in all I believe being fine to going on with NBDP acitivities.

NBDP what's that? You may ask... This is the modern name for the mode family FEC, SelFEC and TOR. The acronym stand for Narrow Band Direct Printing.

PS: if you are on facebook, feel free to join the recently created group "Teleprinting Over Radio"

Teleprinting Over Radio Revival?

Guys, I was wondering if it would be possible to revive a mode that seems to be lost, TOR (AmTOR or if you want - or NBDP as it is called today). To it's time, AmTOR was kinda expensive/hard to get qrv on easily. Transceivers needed a certain RX-TX switch over timing, modems were not cheap, software hard to get hold of. I remember, to the time I had some AmTOR software running on my trusted Apple II.... but that is a long time ago.
In that time, multi-mode controllers came on the market, worth more than a short-wave transceiver... so, I could not afford any of those. Even worse, the transceiver I could afford was a second hand Drake TR4, which would never have had a single chance to meet the timing demands of AmTOR. Hence, I was stuck to my trusty combination of the TR4 and a Siemens T100 doing Radio TeleTYping (aka RTTY).
Oh... and those ARQ signals where present everywhere!
Today, TOR (AmTOR for good measures) is relatively dead. Although, hardware is cheaply available today, and there is also some software downloadable, emulating the hardware solutions. Today's transceivers don't need to be modified anymore, to achieve the timing required for ARQ. AmTOR is a robust mode, good for some straight keyboard communication.... I wonder if we could revive this mode for amateur radio.
Mind you, this mode TOR (Teleprinting Over Radio) is still in use in GMDSS. Actually, it still is the preferred mode in today's maritime communication. Actually, for my GMDSS GOC, I lately had to learn how to connect to a Telex land-line.
Folks, would it not be cool to give this AmTOR a second life? In particular since second hand hardware is available as cheaply as presently....

PS: if you are on facebook, feel free to join the recently created group "Teleprinting Over Radio"