Thanks Jim!
I didn't look at the Fair Rite catalog, but yes…its there on page 8. I am
using 73 material Binocular cores.
The temp. coefficient for 73 material is .65 % per deg C. My temp change is
about 50 deg C, therefore the permeability will change 33 % !!
That seems like a decent amount.
I am going to do an experiment today.
Wind a 9:1 transformer, terminate it with 600 ohm resistor, and sweep with
analyzer. Save file. Should be pretty flat at 75 Ohms.
Put the transformer in the freezer for an hour or so, take out and remeasure.
(I wont cool the resistor) Unfortunately my freezer dose not get to -41 deg C
like it does outside, but the results may be telling.
Yes I could calculate it based on the catalog info, but that is above my
pay-grade.
de steve ve6wz
> On Jan 22, 2020, at 12:10 PM, jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/20 10:23 AM, VE6WZ_Steve wrote:
>> Hi Mike
>> I have not considered the temperature coefficient of the core. That is a
>> great suggestion.
>> I did find some generic plots of permeability vs temperature and there can
>> be a big change. The data sheet from Fair Rite does not quote any
>> temperature coefficient values. I’m not sure how to to test that easily
>> other than heating the core in the field on a cold day. Or perhaps cooling
>> it with an air can upside down in the summer.
>
> Which material is the core made out of? The Fairrite catalog has properties
> vs temperature data in it for some materials. Pages 6 and 7 have the tempco
> of initial permeability (1.6 %/C for 31 mix, 1.25 for 43 mix, 0.10 for 33
> mix, for instance)
>
> The pages for 31 mix (page 17) show mu vs temperature from -50 to 150C,
> measured at 100 kHz (about a 1:3 variation from -50 to 25, BTW)
> and percent impedance vs temperature at 4 frequencies. (10,25, 50, 100 MHz),
> where the loss is dominant.
>
> The other mixes are the same.
> Some of the mixes that are more intended for power supply usage (79,77) have
> power loss density vs temperature at a couple frequencies, for instance
>
>
>
>> The other option is to sweep the raw wire in the field, but at -38C that
>> would be rather difficult.
>> I do plan to experiment with changing the termination resistor value this
>> summer to see if I can replicate the cold weather sweep.
>> 73, de steve ve6wz
>>> On Jan 21, 2020, at 6:50 PM, Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Have you eliminated the core material in the 9:1 transformer as a possible
>>> source of the problem?
>>>
>>> I don't see how the resistance of the galvanized wire changes the surge
>>> impedance significantly. When viewing the beverage as a transmission line
>>> (single round conductor over ground plane), I would expect the distributed
>>> resistance of the steel wire would to make the transmission line loss/unit
>>> length higher, but other than adding a slightly reactive component to the
>>> characteristic impedance, the steel wire resistance change shouldn't make
>>> the real component of the transmission line characteristic impedance change
>>> much.
>>>
>>> 73, Mike W4EF...............
>>>
>>> On 1/21/2020 3:55 PM, VE6WZ_Steve wrote:
>>>> A few days ago I posted a video explaining some experiments I did adding
>>>> short radials to my feed and termination grounds on the Beverage.
>>>> During that week temperatures went as low as -41 C at the station.
>>>>
>>>> The mystery has been solved.
>>>>
>>>> I wondered if the frozen ground was limiting conductivity and upsetting
>>>> the ground resistance part of the impedance. The experiments showed that
>>>> adding radials to stabilize the frozen ground had no effect.
>>>>
>>>> In the video I show how the real resistance of the 920 foot galvanized
>>>> steel wire might drop 10-20 Ohms when the temperature drops 50 deg C from
>>>> the summertime. This would mean that I need a LOWER termination resistor
>>>> to match the surge impedance.
>>>> However, I also show that the ceramic termination resistor I use has a
>>>> very high negative temperature coefficient (-1300 C). This results in an
>>>> INCREASE of 30 to 40 ohms in my 470 Ohm termination resistor. Therefore,
>>>> the termination could be 40 to 60 Ohms too low!! I show in the video that
>>>> the resistor does indeed increase by 40 Ohms when I chucked it out my back
>>>> door at -30C for an hour.
>>>>
>>>> Today I was at the remote and it has warmed up to -1C (35 deg C warmer)
>>>> and the analyzer sweep of the wire has mostly returned to it summer time
>>>> reading.
>>>>
>>>> This seems to indicate that the main cause of the Beverage miss match is
>>>> the temperature coefficient of the wire and the termination resistor.
>>>> Obviously the ground is still just as frozen today as it was last week at
>>>> the feed and termination and under the wire length! Perhaps I will look
>>>> into changing the term resistor with a metal foil unit that has a positive
>>>> temperature coefficient. Carbon composition units also have a negative
>>>> TC, but not as severe as the ceramic units. Those ceramic units are
>>>> almost like thermistors! (well….not really)
>>>>
>>>> However, as I said in the video, this is like a “solution looking for a
>>>> problem” because few Hams experience these extreme temperature changes,
>>>> and even when we do, it's just for a short time. Also, Beverage modelling
>>>> shows that the termination resistor can effect the F/B, but it has limited
>>>> effect on the RDF which is what really matters. This exercise was done
>>>> mostly out of interest and to try and solve the puzzle.
>>>>
>>>> I made a new video showing the sweeps I made today if interested. The
>>>> video includes the original content so if you've seem that just jump to
>>>> the end.
>>>>
>>>> YouTube video here: https://youtu.be/3Oft826Q8tA
>>>> <https://youtu.be/3Oft826Q8tA>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73, de steve ve6wz
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> _______________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|