On 5 Mar, 09:04, Roy Lewallen wrote:
There's no direct way to measure the total power being radiated other
than sampling the field at many points in all directions and
integrating. "Reflected" power is not power that isn't transmitted. You
can find the power being applied to the antenna by subtracting the
"reverse" or "reflected" power from the "forward" power, but that tells
you nothing about what fraction is radiated and what fraction lost as heat.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL



Wayne wrote:
When the subject of antenna efficiency comes up, it often involves a
discussion of ground losses on verticals. What about, for example, a
dipole? Could one calculate "power out/power in" by measuring the VSWR and
declaring that everything not reflected was transmitted? It would seem more
accurate to actually measure power out and power in, but that introduces
inaccuracies by having to calibrate the setup. Thoughts?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you adopt my expansion of gauss it can be calculated.
If you look at the example in Chapter 21 of the Rutgers book on fields
on the net maybe, but maybe, you will think a bit different but I
expect you to fight off the idea of change
Art
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 5 Mar, 09:04, Roy Lewallen wrote:
There's no direct way to measure the total power being radiated other
than sampling the field at many points in all directions and
integrating. "Reflected" power is not power that isn't transmitted. You
can find the power being applied to the antenna by subtracting the
"reverse" or "reflected" power from the "forward" power, but that tells
you nothing about what fraction is radiated and what fraction lost as
heat.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL



Wayne wrote:
When the subject of antenna efficiency comes up, it often involves a
discussion of ground losses on verticals. What about, for example, a
dipole? Could one calculate "power out/power in" by measuring the VSWR
and
declaring that everything not reflected was transmitted? It would seem
more
accurate to actually measure power out and power in, but that
introduces
inaccuracies by having to calibrate the setup. Thoughts?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

If you adopt my expansion of gauss it can be calculated.
If you look at the example in Chapter 21 of the Rutgers book on fields
on the net maybe, but maybe, you will think a bit different but I
expect you to fight off the idea of change
Art

Art--
Thanks for your previous reponse. I don't know if the comment above is
directed to me or Roy. But I can tell you that I am not the person who is
going to understand an expansion of gauss
Wayne