Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: isolation transformer(s) in RX antenna feedlines (?)

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: isolation transformer(s) in RX antenna feedlines (?)
From: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 12:40:23 -0400
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
My question then is:

1. Does a multiple sets of grounding blocks for the RG--6 outside the
   shack hooked to a common point ground hurt anything?
2. Does a toroid ring on each side of the grounding block with 12 turn
   pass throughs hurt anything?


Just curious.


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ



On 11/29/2014 9:36 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
I ran across a sketchy reference to this idea, described as a way to block common mode signals from making it into the shack by cutting off the paths from the coax shield to the RX input. Is there anything to the idea?


I would never consider doing that unless there were special circumstances, because any isolation transformer at that location could easily cause more issues than it cures.

Years ago, the common system used everywhere was a conventional un-un style transformer or an autotransformer. I broke from the standard and used primary-secondary isolation transformers at the feedpoint for three reasons:

1.) I sometimes used phased antennas that required 180 degree phase shift. Isolating the primary accomplished that all in one device that had to be there anyway.

2.) The isolation removed the *direct wired connection between the antenna's RF ground and the feedline shield at the antenna*, and kept any unwanted RF coupling to a very low value. The connection isolation reduces importance of the antenna system's ground quality.

3.) By blocking the dc path, the isolated primary reduces power line frequency or dc bias on the transformer, and reduced galvanic corrosion issues at the antenna by eliminated the path back to the station ground.

This is all just fine right at the feedpoint, or near the feedpoint.

The shack is different. Any RF ingress problem in the shack almost always boils down to how the "boxes" are made and how the coaxial connectors are grounded in cabinets. It is much better to do all the connections and boxes properly than bring more potential ingress problems into the system.

With coaxial lines, we absolutely do NOT need extreme isolation impedances in the shack or just outside the shack. If the connectors and cables are good, and if equipment in the shack is designed even moderately well for cabinets and connector shield path, even a few dozen ohms of impedance from a bead or two over the cable should cure any problem....if there ever is a problem.

Common mode chassis impedances between things in the shack are typically very low, so just a few ohms of additional shield impedance on signal lines can make a profound difference in noise ingress, if there even is any noise ingress.

You don't see any of that stuff in my station, and I sometimes transmit with antennas near the shack while receiving. The most I use is a single bead or two on lines using phono connectors, because the male-female pressure connection (like a BNC) can sometimes develop a few dozen milliohms resistance. I can't ever imagine a situation where more than a few hundred ohms isolation would be required. If there is such a situation, it would be far better to correct the actual cause.

73 Tom
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>