Generally speaking, use powdered iron for narrow frequency HF coupling, and ferrites for broadband HF and VHF applications, at least below where air-core makes more sense. Of course, core shape, size, and conductor diameter variables will also affect efficiency. Then there's power level to consider for the specific application, which will affect all of the other parameters. Then there are non-magnetic and air-cores to consider. Experimenting with transformers may be fun, but to produce optimal results it's a lot more time and energy consuming than hitting the datasheets and software transformer design applications with the requirements for your specific wants and needs, because you can do experiments with core materials forever. There are that many interactive variables. But the experiments and parameter measurements were already done 50 to 100 years ago by the core manufacturers, and the data has been put into transformer design applications. BTW, I'm not against experimentation just for the sake of experimentation. I do it all the time. It's by far my favorite aspect of ham radio. I'm a builder and experimenter, usually making do with the parts on hand and optimizing those. That's my kind of hamming. I don't own expensive ham gear or chase certificates, or rag-chew, nearly as much as I spend my time soldering and measuring, meaning precisely this sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out the best way to get an optimal solution for a specific transformer design problem is with the core data and the application software, which some hams also find to be fun.
Hey John. I agree with everything you said and that is how I enjoy the hobby as well. That’s said, my buddy really wanted to do something with these cores, with what I can see and what we see in the field, I’m more than surprised given the data sheets but I’m having fun. Thanks for watching and for the insightful comment 👍🍻
Very nice work! The basic rule of thumb has been that the higher perm Nickel Zinc ferrites require fewer turns to have enough reactance at the low end, so this helps at the high end. And they handle power. I don't mean to throw in another variable, but the number of turns can be adjusted based on the material.
"I don't mean to throw in another variable," Mike says, in a discussion of applied magnetics, (which already has half a dozen different names to describe every parameter, just to confuse the unwary.) It's a subject with seemingly endless variables, and they are ALL interactive, in a nonlinear manner. Personally, I felt like I was falling into a Black Hole when I first started digging into it. Applied magnetics is a very large subject to fully grok.
It's been a wile I mess with this stuff. I'm kinda getting back to the hobby. Thanks to you I'm playing around again. Most of the time we study just to pass the ticket but it's very important to understand how all this works. Love your Videos man. Ty
This is one of the best and most comprehensive videos I have found on this subject. Thank you for all of the time and effort you put in to providing this information for us. Good job.
nice testing. I wish I had some 240 type 52 mix to try. only have type 31 43 and 61. I did build a off set center for 10 meters veritable. used a type 61 t240 core. what i had. all speaker wire tape to DX commander 10 meter pole. got a nice tune. works about the same as T2LT coax antenna . but I did compare FT8 10 meters in the same day. just hour apart .using end fed half wave fed with 49:1 type 61 with ground plain . veritable to a off center fed 4:1 type 61 core same pole ,I have 2 . lay one down. stand outher up. what I found is my signal reports on end fed half wave was a tad better both ways . from antenna molding which i did i found half wave ground plan antenna has slight higher gain and better take off angel for dx. the off center had no ground plain. now from modeling looks like 5/8 wave ground plain get me best pattern . now I have to figure out the feed match. that 52 mix is not as common. I did find Soto beams has the T 240 type 52. I got their antenna wire in green . great wire . 73's
A nice relaxing video for the end of the day. It amazes me that the test says one should work better but in the field says otherwise. I am wondering what the theory is behind those results?
Hey Cliff. What we saw was that the 52 was easier to tune…. I don’t have an explanation for that YET. Chuck has a few different versions built and we are going to do a tuner-test!
Very interesting! I love that you’re doing field test bcs sometimes theory doesn’t translate to reality. Field test is really important because only then we can see how the whole irradiating system really works. 73!
Well done for doing these tests, a considerable amount of effort. Your S11 measurements are interesting, in many of them the resistive element is very close to 50 ohms but with a reactive element. I suspect that with a correction capacitor you could cancel some of that and raise the apparent efficiency seen in the S21 measurements. A well presented video once again, 73
Hi, ape. Thanks for the comprehensive review of the different types of toroids. It's an area of the radio arts that I know way too little of. I decided to review the comments before I added mine. As soon as I heard you say "100 ohm capacitors" my interest was piqued. I've been an electrical engineer since 1973 and this is the first time I've ever heard of a capacitor referred to in ohms. Obviously a slip of the tongue! Best and 73, Marc (N1QGM)
Another well put together video with a stack of useful information. The results were a little disappointing because I really liked the pretty red one! 😜👍
I love these videos Ape. I got a question. If you have a video already that explains it feel free to point me that way. If you go from the 140-XX to a 240-XX where the XX is the same foe each, is it just bigger or is there another significant thing either good or bad?
Hey Bryant, glad you like them. So, an FT140-43 means its a ferrite toroid 1.4" in diameter mix 43; aa FT240-43 would mean that it's an outer diameter of 2.4" and mix 43. If a core is T130-2, that means its a powder iron core with an outer diameter of 1.3" and type 2. Type and mix are poder iron and ferrite.
Thanks Ape. The question must have been asked before, but what would happen when you combine two different toroids and wind the wire as if they were one. Could you get the best of booth worlds like good on lower and good on higher frequencies? Or would something totally unexpected happen? I don't have any testing gear or toroids myself. So just throwing the question out there...
Hey Traveler, it has been asked in other videos. I have never tried it and haven’t seen others do it either. I will use a type 43 for a 49:1 and then a type 31 for a choke behind that. I would not use them in the same transformer but would in series 👍
Interesting results, most folks that I know would swear that the 43 mix would outperform the iron mix by a landslide. Would there be any reason not to use this core for an EFHW 49:1 or EFRW 9:1? Awesome video keep up the great work!
I wouldn't mind giving it a shot. I could try 9:1 and 49:1. What would entail a good test? I don't have a vna only a g90 with is swr meter is that good enough? Where could I get such a core?
Very comprehensive tests, looks like 52/43/61 are all reasonable choices to make baluns given that QSB will be way worse than 0.5db. I've only used 43 for baluns. Even though they won't handle it, It might be worth seeing how long they can take 100W.
Hi ape. Thanks for the presentation. I am still not convinced with the #52 iron powder core. If it is possible, please use #26 (yellow-white, equivalentto#52)(iron powder core) along with other iron powder cores. This just satisfies my curiosity. De VU2RZA
Could you do a similar test with ATU efficiency? Like, I'm looking at getting the AH-705. Could you get two of them, tune them both at the same frequency on a random wire, then connect them back to back and test if they are more or less efficient that unun's and baluns? (the AH-705 can be connected directly to a random wire with no unun, I'm curious if it's better to use this tuner or a 9:1 unun across all parts of each band).
Hey Tru, here is a video where I show how to measure the loss in tuners: ua-cam.com/video/NaY3HEOEGpA/v-deo.html One thing to note, if you have a tuner in the shack you also want to consider loss in the coaxial cable, my SWR myths video talks a bit about that
@@TheSmokinApe Yes, I watched that video before this one. It just measured input losses. I was wondering what the efficiency of the actual components are IRL. Just risistive losses. I am curious if an ATU (without an unun) is more or less efficient than an unun. Another thing to look at would be average efficiency across each band. Like, if the unun at its most efficient frequency is slightly more efficient than the ATU, but the ATU is more efficient across all other frequencies in every band, the ATU would still be the better choice. If it turns out the ATU is actually more efficient across the board, it would show that a tuner, directly connected to a random wire antenna of suffici, is better in every way than an unun and EFRW or EFHW. Right now I get the impression that most people think an ATU sacrifices efficiency for frequency agility. I would be cool to prove that that's not the case - you can actually have it all with an ATU.
@@TheSmokinApe I know. So, going back to my original question, is it possible to test how efficient a tuner is in the same way as you're testing the ununs? Getting two tuned in to the same frequency on an EFRW and then connecting the tuners back to back and seeing what the losses are at that frequency?
For some reason, and who knows what it is…. The green cores have been easier to tune. Chuck has a few different antennas re-built and we are going to run the tuner-test!
Nice Ape! How often do you get to see the test results for the choice of a component that will go into a product. Thanks for letting us ride along Sir! 73 - KF6IF
Interesting, I thought green ones were junk. Do you plan to test ferrite rod baluns? Similar principle, but all new can of worms once you start researching it :)
I haven't really found a source for ferrite rods, but I haven't really looked either. I suppose that's something I should do, thanks for the suggestion 👍
That’s a pretty typical scenario, you should be fine. That said, any conductive material, in the near field which is about a 1/4 wave will impact your far filed pattern. Everyone puts them on metal poles, so don’t worry about it bro 👍
NICE! Fantastic experiment. Now it makes perfect sense why you'd use the green toroid over the traditional -43. Someday maybe I'll try an EFHW with the green one and see how that behaves, as it seems like most EFHW people are -43 junkies...73,
Sorry, I do not get it, what is the purpose of the test with the same size and the same number of turns? This test DOES NOT SHOW ANY EFFICIENCY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT AND NEED TO BE WIND WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF TURNS. This test is misleading! 73 Danny E73M aka N4EXA
HI DANIEL. YOU ARE CORRECT, THE CORES ARE DIFFERENT WITH DIFFERENT COMPOSITION AND WOULD NEED TO BE WRAPPED DIFFERENTLY TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR INDUCTANCE. WHEN YOU LOOK FOR UNUN SCHEMATICS ON THE INTERNET THEY WILL SHOW A WINDING AND RECOMMEND A CORE AND THEN, AT TIMES, LIST OTHER CORES YOU COULD USE WITHOUT MENTIONING CHANGING THE WINDING. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WANT TO SHOW PEOPLE HOW TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN TESTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOBBYIST GEAR SO THEY CAN LEARN AND FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES. OH, GLAD YOU LIKED THE VIDEO 👍
Generally speaking, use powdered iron for narrow frequency HF coupling, and ferrites for broadband HF and VHF applications, at least below where air-core makes more sense. Of course, core shape, size, and conductor diameter variables will also affect efficiency. Then there's power level to consider for the specific application, which will affect all of the other parameters. Then there are non-magnetic and air-cores to consider. Experimenting with transformers may be fun, but to produce optimal results it's a lot more time and energy consuming than hitting the datasheets and software transformer design applications with the requirements for your specific wants and needs, because you can do experiments with core materials forever. There are that many interactive variables. But the experiments and parameter measurements were already done 50 to 100 years ago by the core manufacturers, and the data has been put into transformer design applications. BTW, I'm not against experimentation just for the sake of experimentation. I do it all the time. It's by far my favorite aspect of ham radio. I'm a builder and experimenter, usually making do with the parts on hand and optimizing those. That's my kind of hamming. I don't own expensive ham gear or chase certificates, or rag-chew, nearly as much as I spend my time soldering and measuring, meaning precisely this sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out the best way to get an optimal solution for a specific transformer design problem is with the core data and the application software, which some hams also find to be fun.
Hey John. I agree with everything you said and that is how I enjoy the hobby as well. That’s said, my buddy really wanted to do something with these cores, with what I can see and what we see in the field, I’m more than surprised given the data sheets but I’m having fun. Thanks for watching and for the insightful comment 👍🍻
Very nice work! The basic rule of thumb has been that the higher perm Nickel Zinc ferrites require fewer turns to have enough reactance at the low end, so this helps at the high end. And they handle power.
I don't mean to throw in another variable, but the number of turns can be adjusted based on the material.
"I don't mean to throw in another variable," Mike says, in a discussion of applied magnetics, (which already has half a dozen different names to describe every parameter, just to confuse the unwary.) It's a subject with seemingly endless variables, and they are ALL interactive, in a nonlinear manner. Personally, I felt like I was falling into a Black Hole when I first started digging into it. Applied magnetics is a very large subject to fully grok.
I agree Mikro, I just wanted a consistent “control” 🤣
Hey John, I agree… it’s impossible to get a controlled experiment in a home set up 😮
It's been a wile I mess with this stuff. I'm kinda getting back to the hobby. Thanks to you I'm playing around again. Most of the time we study just to pass the ticket but it's very important to understand how all this works. Love your Videos man. Ty
Glad you like them Andy, thank you for watching 👍
This is one of the best and most comprehensive videos I have found on this subject. Thank you for all of the time and effort you put in to providing this information for us. Good job.
Thanks for watching Dave, glad you liked the video 👍
nice testing. I wish I had some 240 type 52 mix to try. only have type 31 43 and 61. I did build a off set center for 10 meters veritable. used a type 61 t240 core. what i had. all speaker wire tape to DX commander 10 meter pole. got a nice tune. works about the same as T2LT coax antenna . but I did compare FT8 10 meters in the same day. just hour apart .using end fed half wave fed with 49:1 type 61 with ground plain . veritable to a off center fed 4:1 type 61 core same pole ,I have 2 . lay one down. stand outher up. what I found is my signal reports on end fed half wave was a tad better both ways . from antenna molding which i did i found half wave ground plan antenna has slight higher gain and better take off angel for dx. the off center had no ground plain. now from modeling looks like 5/8 wave ground plain get me best pattern . now I have to figure out the feed match. that 52 mix is not as common. I did find Soto beams has the T 240 type 52. I got their antenna wire in green . great wire . 73's
correction . HF kits has T 240 type 52 cores. only in 240 size. they sell that ARRL kit. that a 43 mix . think you made that one.
I did make the ARRL one. I want to do a 5/8 vertical but just haven’t found the time 👍
I think I saw those on your bench during Jason's CAHRTenna build video 😉
Hey Doug, they were indeed on the bench 👍
A nice relaxing video for the end of the day.
It amazes me that the test says one should work better but in the field says otherwise.
I am wondering what the theory is behind those results?
Hey Cliff. What we saw was that the 52 was easier to tune…. I don’t have an explanation for that YET. Chuck has a few different versions built and we are going to do a tuner-test!
Very interesting! I love that you’re doing field test bcs sometimes theory doesn’t translate to reality. Field test is really important because only then we can see how the whole irradiating system really works. 73!
Totally agree, my buddy Chuck @kk6usy ham radio adventures is posting the files test video 👍
Well done for doing these tests, a considerable amount of effort. Your S11 measurements are interesting, in many of them the resistive element is very close to 50 ohms but with a reactive element. I suspect that with a correction capacitor you could cancel some of that and raise the apparent efficiency seen in the S21 measurements. A well presented video once again, 73
Thanks g0fvt, we have looked into including a variable cap but haven’t made it that far. Glad you liked the video and thanks for watching 👍
6:10 I'm a newer ham but I don't think these are capacitors, and if so, definitely not 100 Ohm caps. 😛
D’oh!
I came to see if i was the only one😊
@@Cliff-KI5OPP it was a long day… lol
Hi, ape. Thanks for the comprehensive review of the different types of toroids. It's an area of the radio arts that I know way too little of. I decided to review the comments before I added mine. As soon as I heard you say "100 ohm capacitors" my interest was piqued. I've been an electrical engineer since 1973 and this is the first time I've ever heard of a capacitor referred to in ohms. Obviously a slip of the tongue!
Best and 73,
Marc (N1QGM)
I must have been drinking 🍻
Another well put together video with a stack of useful information. The results were a little disappointing because I really liked the pretty red one! 😜👍
Thanks Ace, appreciate you watching 👍
I love these videos Ape. I got a question. If you have a video already that explains it feel free to point me that way. If you go from the 140-XX to a 240-XX where the XX is the same foe each, is it just bigger or is there another significant thing either good or bad?
Hey Bryant, glad you like them. So, an FT140-43 means its a ferrite toroid 1.4" in diameter mix 43; aa FT240-43 would mean that it's an outer diameter of 2.4" and mix 43. If a core is T130-2, that means its a powder iron core with an outer diameter of 1.3" and type 2. Type and mix are poder iron and ferrite.
That was a lot of work. Thanks for doing that!
Yes it was!
On man. I’ve been waiting for this!
Thanks for watching 👍
Thanks Ape. The question must have been asked before, but what would happen when you combine two different toroids and wind the wire as if they were one. Could you get the best of booth worlds like good on lower and good on higher frequencies? Or would something totally unexpected happen? I don't have any testing gear or toroids myself. So just throwing the question out there...
Hey Traveler, it has been asked in other videos. I have never tried it and haven’t seen others do it either. I will use a type 43 for a 49:1 and then a type 31 for a choke behind that. I would not use them in the same transformer but would in series 👍
Looks like the best would be pairing green with one of the ferrites. Power handling improves, and both low and high bands are good. 🤔🤔🤔
Maybe I should mix them up in a blender 🤔
@@TheSmokinApe I'd watch that video. 👍
@@TheSmokinApe On the next episode of "Will it blend?" 🤩
Interesting results, most folks that I know would swear that the 43 mix would outperform the iron mix by a landslide. Would there be any reason not to use this core for an EFHW 49:1 or EFRW 9:1?
Awesome video keep up the great work!
I haven’t tested in a configuration other than a 4:1. I would be suspect of it at those higher ratios but it t might work…
I wouldn't mind giving it a shot.
I could try 9:1 and 49:1.
What would entail a good test?
I don't have a vna only a g90 with is swr meter is that good enough?
Where could I get such a core?
I believe we got these from TME.com
Very comprehensive tests, looks like 52/43/61 are all reasonable choices to make baluns given that QSB will be way worse than 0.5db. I've only used 43 for baluns.
Even though they won't handle it, It might be worth seeing how long they can take 100W.
Hey GDL. We'll be doing some power tests 👍
Thanks for this. If you can, could you put your spreadsheet on google docs and share. Its would make a handy reference.
I will at some point, it has a bunch of data for 9:1 cores and I want to add some more for 49:1 👍
Awesome.
What toroid would you use as a choke if needed, T52 as well?.
Thanks.
For chokes I like to use ferrite mix 31 👍
Great video!
Thanks HRP 👍
Hi ape. Thanks for the presentation.
I am still not convinced with the #52 iron powder core.
If it is possible, please use #26 (yellow-white, equivalentto#52)(iron powder core) along with
other iron powder cores.
This just satisfies my curiosity.
De VU2RZA
Hey Subramanian, I don’t have any 26 cores but I will see if I can source one.
Could you do a similar test with ATU efficiency? Like, I'm looking at getting the AH-705. Could you get two of them, tune them both at the same frequency on a random wire, then connect them back to back and test if they are more or less efficient that unun's and baluns? (the AH-705 can be connected directly to a random wire with no unun, I'm curious if it's better to use this tuner or a 9:1 unun across all parts of each band).
Hey Tru, here is a video where I show how to measure the loss in tuners: ua-cam.com/video/NaY3HEOEGpA/v-deo.html One thing to note, if you have a tuner in the shack you also want to consider loss in the coaxial cable, my SWR myths video talks a bit about that
@@TheSmokinApe Yes, I watched that video before this one. It just measured input losses. I was wondering what the efficiency of the actual components are IRL. Just risistive losses. I am curious if an ATU (without an unun) is more or less efficient than an unun.
Another thing to look at would be average efficiency across each band. Like, if the unun at its most efficient frequency is slightly more efficient than the ATU, but the ATU is more efficient across all other frequencies in every band, the ATU would still be the better choice.
If it turns out the ATU is actually more efficient across the board, it would show that a tuner, directly connected to a random wire antenna of suffici, is better in every way than an unun and EFRW or EFHW. Right now I get the impression that most people think an ATU sacrifices efficiency for frequency agility. I would be cool to prove that that's not the case - you can actually have it all with an ATU.
In many cases folks run an UnUn AND a tuner. People act like loss isn’t real but it can add up quick 👍
@@TheSmokinApe I know. So, going back to my original question, is it possible to test how efficient a tuner is in the same way as you're testing the ununs? Getting two tuned in to the same frequency on an EFRW and then connecting the tuners back to back and seeing what the losses are at that frequency?
What I would do is place a swr and power meter before and after the tuner and compare the power measurements to determine loss 👍
That powdered iron core are definitely going to be better at the lower freq. 73
For some reason, and who knows what it is…. The green cores have been easier to tune. Chuck has a few different antennas re-built and we are going to run the tuner-test!
Nice Ape! How often do you get to see the test results for the choice of a component that will go into a product. Thanks for letting us ride along Sir!
73 - KF6IF
We do a ton of testing so we see them often. Also, we will send some to others to test for feedback.
Interesting, I thought green ones were junk. Do you plan to test ferrite rod baluns? Similar principle, but all new can of worms once you start researching it :)
I haven't really found a source for ferrite rods, but I haven't really looked either. I suppose that's something I should do, thanks for the suggestion 👍
What is the power envelope for these QRP, 10, 20, 100W? I may have missed it in my initial watch through.
Hey Shawn, these were all tested with a very low signal. I get that I should potentially expect different results at higher power.
@TheSmokinApe thanks sir! I'm just thinking about building one myself. This is all great info. Don't want to undersize the build.
Where is mix 31? 🤔 👍👍👍
So, I typically use mix 31 for chokes and I don't think I have any in this size so I lfe them out...
@@TheSmokinApe How about a test of two major brands? Fair Rite and Amidon?
I am building a Yagi antenna would it effect the performance if I mount it on a metal pole? WQ9V
That’s a pretty typical scenario, you should be fine. That said, any conductive material, in the near field which is about a 1/4 wave will impact your far filed pattern. Everyone puts them on metal poles, so don’t worry about it bro 👍
NICE! Fantastic experiment. Now it makes perfect sense why you'd use the green toroid over the traditional -43. Someday maybe I'll try an EFHW with the green one and see how that behaves, as it seems like most EFHW people are -43 junkies...73,
Yeah, for EFHW 43, 52 and 61 are the most popular. Thanks for watch HRE 👍
👍Thank you sir.
Thanks for watching 👍
Looks good.. way to narrow it down.. testing and data rules
Hey Andy. I think we have a little more to do but overall we feel good about the type 52 core.
OUTSTANDING! 👍 PS. I'm eating crow tonight.
lol, there’s still testing to do. Thanks for watching Hollywood 👍
Money green, son.
Lol
Those are actually made from congealed Shamrock Shakes.
@@45auto I thought the shake machine wasn't working, LOL
Lol
👍
Thanks BA 👍
Son, your fingers must be sore. That's a lot of cores to wrap.
Bro… you don’t even know. It was all day winding them 😳
Sorry, I do not get it, what is the purpose of the test with the same size and the same number of turns? This test DOES NOT SHOW ANY EFFICIENCY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT AND NEED TO BE WIND WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF TURNS. This test is misleading! 73 Danny E73M aka N4EXA
HI DANIEL. YOU ARE CORRECT, THE CORES ARE DIFFERENT WITH DIFFERENT COMPOSITION AND WOULD NEED TO BE WRAPPED DIFFERENTLY TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR INDUCTANCE. WHEN YOU LOOK FOR UNUN SCHEMATICS ON THE INTERNET THEY WILL SHOW A WINDING AND RECOMMEND A CORE AND THEN, AT TIMES, LIST OTHER CORES YOU COULD USE WITHOUT MENTIONING CHANGING THE WINDING. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WANT TO SHOW PEOPLE HOW TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN TESTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOBBYIST GEAR SO THEY CAN LEARN AND FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES. OH, GLAD YOU LIKED THE VIDEO 👍
Careful these torids can drive one into insanity 😂😂
#truth