Binocular cores question - RF Cafe Forums
Because of the high maintenance needed to monitor and filter spammers from the RF Cafe Forums, I decided that it would
be best to just archive the pages to make all the good information posted in the past available for review. It is unfortunate
that the scumbags of the world ruin an otherwise useful venue for people wanting to exchanged useful ideas and views.
It seems that the more formal social media like Facebook pretty much dominate this kind of venue anymore anyway, so if
you would like to post something on RF Cafe's
page, please do.
Below are all of the forum threads, including all
the responses to the original posts.
Post subject: Binocular cores question Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:35 pm
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:25 pm
Location: Hampshire UK
I have been reading what I can
find about the ways of winding two-hole flat toroidals (binocular) RF ferrite cores as widely used in baluns,
transformer-type hybrids, etc. There are many types, but a basic feature leaves me confused.
visualise a binocular as two toroids stood together. Therefore a winding which goes through a hole, and back down
the other is a turn. Windings like this on the "stem" I can understand. Two such windings will couple strongly,
and can give a nice flat component with input at one end, and output at the other. Is just a small version of a
regular mains power transformer, morphed to be a bit flatter.
It is when I see windings that go around the
outside that I start to become unglued. A wire through a hole, that goes outside around one limb, then back though
the same hole is not going to much couple to another similar winding on the other "toroid".
Aside from use
as a high power common mode choke where the "stem" is expected to saturate, does anyone know where there is a
clear explanation of how these things operate?
Thanks much if you can help
Post subject: Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:57 am
I design mixers for a living and use binoc cores alot for the
Winding bifilar wire around each "outside" creates a 4:1 balun.
Similarly, it is a good way
to create directional couplers.
Post subject: Binocular coresPosted: Mon Oct 24,
2005 11:38 am
Binocular cores are most often used as part of transmission line transformers.
(as in the reply from the previous poster) are usually transmission line transformers. The classic book on the
subject is by Jerry Sevick, and is titled "Transmission Line Transformers" and published by Noble.
Transmission line transformers do not work like regular transformers, by having magnetic flux linking two
windings, but by adding series impedance to common-mode transmission modes. If this doesn't make sense, you really
should "read the book" - it will be an eye-opener!
subject: Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:42 am
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:25 pm
Location: Hampshire UK
Thanks for the replies, and for the book reference Gerry.
I have appreciated
that if you wind (say) a toroid with primary one side, secondary the other, well separated, you get a transformer
that works up to the magnetic limits of the core material (nickel / manganese / iron / ferrite mixes).
instead, you use a bifilar, or twisted pair as a transmission line in the windings, the capacitive coupling takes
over where the magnetics run out, giving a very wideband performance limited maybe by the losses of the material
at frequencies where "air-only" would maybe have been better.
The use as mixer transformers is different. I
can find analyses for all sorts of classic transformer setups including (at HF to UHF) hybrid couplers/splitters
(magic tee!), directional couplers, baluns, etc. It is when we get to the actual physical construction of the
examples that I find this "gap" in the rationale. I can see the recipes. Both kinds of winding type are there,
sometimes used within one device!
Do I take it then that any turns that loop round the outside increase the
inductance in that route by the effect of one toroid turns worth, but with a limited coupling into the other half
that leaks across the "stem"? Windings that share the "stem" will couple very strongly, and also capacitively,
being as they drive a common part of the magnetic circuit, and are close together, I take that as given.
understand what you say about 4:1 baluns. I do not see that the use of a binocular core is fundamentally special
to it. I could also construct that 4:1 balun on a single (one-hole) toroid. I can make the same balun somewhat
better on a binocular core, putting both windings on the shared central stem. Provided both (say bifilar) wires
take the same route together wherever they go, I will get the much the same balun, even if I wind some turns
around any outer limbs. I do question why do this, when it loses the advantage of enclosing more of the turns in a
twin-toroid strapped-together scheme? What happens if you let separated circuits use these uncoupled routes is not
What I hoped to tease out was a clear explanation of how/why to exploit the "outer" limb route
when designing windings. I wanted what motivates it as a choice. Maybe Gerry's book reference will provide it
without getting me in even deeper into the hard sums!
Post subject: Posted: Tue
Oct 25, 2005 5:08 pm
Pehaps I misunderstood your question. I definetly under estimated your
knowledge of transformers, baluns etc.
I tried to convey why binoc cores are useful for a variety of
I used the example of a 4:1 transmission line transformer. You noted it could be done with 2
wires around the "stem". This would create an unbalanced to unbalanced 4:! transformer. Whereas a bifilar wire
around each utside", a unbalanced to balanced 4:1 transformer could be created. Whether it be use in a mixer or
not is not important.
To make a 4:1 unbalanced to balanced by wrapping the wires around just the stem
would require you to use quadfilar. This degrades perfomance greatly due to excess C and common moding.
course you may lose something because the winding are not totally enclosed whithin the core, but it's not
significant in alot of application.
In fact it sometimes inhibits high end frequency performance because of
added shunt C.
I have a feeling I still didn't answer you question, but I guess my point is for some
applications maximum coupling is less important than versitilty, balance etc.
Post subject: Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:39 pm
Gerry - that book by Sevick is expensive! Yet I think it is
likely worth it because I have dug up other Sevick articles on broadband transmission line transformers. He is
clearly an expert.
Given what you say about the 4:1 balun example, I think I may have run across a
(possibly cultural) difference in what I thought it was. Allow also that I just might still be ignorant about
some. Hell, there are so many of them!
I know of two very different 4:1 baluns builds. The first is made on
one core, which can be a toroid, or the stem of a binocular core. The essential feature is that it is an
autotransformer connection where the end of one winding connects to the start of the next. One winding is
energised relative to the grounded centre. The balanced output is right across the two windings. ie. one leg of
the balanced output shares a connection with the "hot" AC input.
I guess this what you would have called an
unbalanced to unbalanced 4:1 thing, but many folk have used it as an antenna feed balun.
The other kind is
a full-blown two-transformer affair which is made using either two separate cores, or, just might be made by
winding each transformer on the outer limbs of a binocular core. The winding connections are such that the
balanced side now has each leg connecting to a winding end of its own, without any sharing. (I won't even try a
full description in words of the "series crossed over" primary connection)!
I guess this is maybe what you have
in mind when you think of a "proper" unbal - to - balanced device.
My point here is that the binocular core
in this case is incidental. It is only two cores (maybe conveniently) stood next to each other. Even so, if you
connect transformers together in this fashion, there are some paths formed that do take currents around the stem.
Moreover, when the windings are excited as transmission lines, you get a whole raft of useful devices that do not
behave as simple transformers. This is the point I ran out of smarts, prompting the original question.
maybe Sevick's book can be had on Ebay... yeah!
Post subject: Posted: Thu Oct
27, 2005 6:35 am
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:25 pm
Darn.. this keeps happening to me. That previous Guest post was me.
Further to the theme Jerry Trask
untangles exactly what we have been talking about in ..http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/Trask4to1Balun.pdf
Yet - the question about what motivates a "on the limbs" winding remains..
A 45MHz to 2.5GHz matching
transformer (yeah - that good!) from EPCOS is a simple autotransformer connection, with no bells and whistles
unless there is some coupled circuit artistry in there that nobody explicitly articulates.
Maybe stem windings are only for low frequency work. About halfway down this page is a great picture of one
used for a ham http://www.isp.ca/ve3nh/rxant.htm
More elaborate versions of this, complete with brass tube
shields going right through the holes are used in VHF power amplifiers. The frequency coverage of these
transformers is clearly way beyond where the core magnetics frequency limit is - or am I wrong about that as well?
Am I just being obtuse? Am I questioning what others find obvious? Is this getting into the area of
"proprietary black art"? What is it that motivates a designer to make some types on the stem, other types being
two transformers, one each on its own limb, and yet other types being one transformer with each winding on its own
Also - if this is getting too esoteric, I guess I can abandon this thread. There are sexier subjects
on this forum than the finer points of binocular cores.
Post subject: Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:11 pm
Well first of all I don't think you have been wrong about anything...yet!:)
Maybe I'm wierd, but I'd much rather talk about transformers than alot of the other topics in this forum. The
problem is that there are so many applications an variables to transformers that it's difficults to discuss
without visual aides.
For example, I can think of at least 6 dirrerent ways to make a 4:1 transformer, but
It would take to long to describe how each one is constructed. My boss is already mad at me as it is.
Anyway, I guess I never answered your question. Being the empirical designer that I am, I've found pro's and con's
"binocs" vs. "2 toriods" vs. "stems" vs. etc., but can't expain why that is.
Good luck Graham,
let me know if you figure it out.
Post subject: Binocular coresPosted: Thu Oct
27, 2005 12:21 pm
A few comments:
1. Sevick's book shows up for about $39 on www.bookfinder.com - that's
not too bad, given what tech books go for these days. It's also available in a reprint edition from Noble
2. Extreme bandwidth is characteristic of transmission-line transformers. There's nothing
proprietary or "black art" about it - again, Sevick's book and articles explain it clearly. While I couldn't get
the Epcos link to work correctly, I'd bet money that they're not "just" an autotransformer, but have
3. The reason for extreme bandwidth is that the performance at the high
end is not determined by the magnetic aspect of the device, but by the transmission line imperfections. The
magnetic path only affects the low-frequency end.
4. The ideal magnetic core surrounds the windings
entirely. Obviously, the wires have to get in and out. The VE3NH picture shows the use of a binocular core as a
way to get a good low-impedance path for the magnetic flux. The same idea is used in pot cores at lower
frequencies. Unless I miss my guess, the brass tubing you've seen is actually part of a winding.
Trask's site is a good one - Chris is a good guy to know about!
Post subject: Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:27 pm
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:25 pm
Location: Hampshire UK
I will be getting the book.
In this, I have trawled hard for some
clear explanation. I have got used to the fact that you can re-draw the 4:1 transformer schematic three different
ways, one to emphasise the connection analogy to a half-wave balun, the second as a traditional 4:1
transmission-line transformer, and yet again as a conventional auto-transformer.
However many papers I dig
up, however acedemic the analyses, the bit that is always missing is the motivation for the sort of thing you see
on mini-circuits homepage. (Miniature Bias Tees 20 to 6000 MHz as seen in RF Design Magazine).
They cannot have decided to hang the wire in there just any old way it would fit!
I am thinking that
Gerry's empirical design methods are used far and wide, and in more places than the big companies selling
simulation software would readily admit is so.
Post subject: Binocular
coresPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:46 pm
Ummm, the Mini-circuits Bias Tee has almost nothing to do with
transformers and baluns at all - they're just getting the most inductance they can with the core in question. It's
a single-winding inductor in series with a physically-separated small microstrip inductance, so that
self-resonance of the large inductor won't kill the performance of the bias tee.
Mini-circuits is just
getting the most wire on the core that they can possibly get with that size core, to maximize the inductance.
Schematics don't tell you all there is to know about a part - sometimes you have to look at the current flows
and the magnetic fields.
The essence of transmission line transformers is the separate handling of
differential mode and common mode waves on the transmission line.
The differential current generates
(essentially) no external magnetic field, because the currents are traveling in opposite directions almost on top
of each other - the magnetic fields cancel each other out.
On the other hand, the common-mode current (the
current going the same direction through the two wires of the transmission line) does generate an external
magnetic field - which can be handled with an external magnetic circuit.
A conventional transformer, or an
autotransformer, uses wires which are not part of a transmission line, so there's no differential current at all.
So all (desired) coupling is via magnetic fields.
It's not the capacitive coupling between the conductors
"taking over" from magnetic coupling in a transmission-line transformer, it's decoupling the common-mode current.
By the way, Sevick published a series of articles in QST magazine on the subject, too.