Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] YCCC 9 Circle Receive Array

To: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] YCCC 9 Circle Receive Array
From: VE6WZ_Steve <ve6wz@shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 13:34:21 -0600
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Roger,

Each HI-Z amp (impedance buffer) at each element already has a 1:1 “braid 
breaker” choke at the input so is already isolated from the feedline.

The chokes at the combiner prevent all the feedlines together them from acting 
like a ground screen.  Without the chokes, they are all RF bonded together.
John W1FV explained this in his original NCC paper how it upsets the pattern.

I have thought about redesigning the combiner board with integrated 1:1 toroid 
braid-breakers on each feedline (just like the element amps) but haven't got 
around to that.
That would be a lot cheaper and easier than installing out-board chokes.

Steve, ve6wz

> On Sep 23, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Roger Parsons via TowerTalk 
> <towertalk@contesting.com> wrote:
> 
> I have recently completed building a YCCC 9 Circle array, and it seems to 
> work quite nicely. This replaces a receive 4 square using top loaded elements 
> - I could never get that to last as animals would break one or more of the 
> top loading wires mistuning the array.
> 
> The instructions for the YCCC array are explicit that there must be common 
> mode chokes between each element and the combiner unit. That is obviously a 
> good idea, but I can't understand why they suggest putting them at the 
> combiner unit end of the feed lines to each element, and my feeling is that 
> they should be at the element ends. (The elements have a very poor ground, 
> and the feed lines are significantly long. Surely that means that the high 
> impedance of a common mode choke at the combiner will be transformed to a 
> different and probably lower impedance at the element. The effect of that 
> could be that the feed line becomes the main and unpredictable ground for the 
> element, and different for each element, which I think is exactly what is not 
> required.)
> 
> Comments would be appreciated.
> 
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>