![]() |
The effect of insulation on small loops
In persuit of the BPL issue, I have explored small untuned loops for field strength measurement. Comparison of a loop calibrated to an NEC2 model to a commercial loop with traceable calibration was very encouraging. Constructors would like to use insulated wire for such a loop, and that raises the question of the effect of insulation on the Antenna Factor. My guess is that where the loop is small, current is uniform and the effect of a slightly different phase shift around the loop due to the insulation would be very small. That would be less so at frequencies approaching the first resonance of the loop. My understanding is that NEC4 might provide a good estimate of the difference between insulated and uninsulated wire. I don't have NEC4 and am looking for someone who might be prepared to run a bunch of models for me in batch mode. I would supply the model decks and a batch file to run them, my volunteer would need to run the batch file and zip the output files up and mail them back to me for analysis. My intention is to produce the same data that is plotted at http://www.vk1od.net/SmallUntunedSquareLoop/ssulNEC.htm for each loop, and to plot the dB difference vs frequency to infer some general guidance on loop sizes where conductor insulation becomes significant to Antenna Factor. Comments / volunteers? Owen owen at vk1od.net |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Richard Clark wrote in
: On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:22:40 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote: My understanding is that NEC4 might provide a good estimate of the difference between insulated and uninsulated wire. I don't have NEC4 and am looking for someone who might be prepared to run a bunch of models for me in batch mode. I would supply the model decks and a batch file to run them, my volunteer would need to run the batch file and zip the output files up and mail them back to me for analysis. EZNEC, the free version, supports insulated wire - unless you want to bury it. Thanks. No, I did not want to bury the loop. My version of EZNEC (a pay for version) appears not to model insulation. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:22:40 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:
My understanding is that NEC4 might provide a good estimate of the difference between insulated and uninsulated wire. I don't have NEC4 and am looking for someone who might be prepared to run a bunch of models for me in batch mode. I would supply the model decks and a batch file to run them, my volunteer would need to run the batch file and zip the output files up and mail them back to me for analysis. EZNEC, the free version, supports insulated wire - unless you want to bury it. |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Owen Duffy wrote:
My version of EZNEC (a pay for version) appears not to model insulation. You have v. 3.0. Wire insulation was one of the features added at v. 4.0. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Roy Lewallen wrote in news:130125qpgle3i23
@corp.supernews.com: Owen Duffy wrote: My version of EZNEC (a pay for version) appears not to model insulation. You have v. 3.0. Wire insulation was one of the features added at v. 4.0. Yes, that is correct. Where V4 uses the NEC2 engine, is insulation modelled the same way as in NEC4? If not, is the accuracy comparable? Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
The EZNEC insulation modeling method is basically similar to that used
by NEC-4, but different. The accuracy is comparable. Both programs (EZNEC and NEC-4) are accurate only for thin layers of material with relatively low conductivity and permittivity, i.e., like typical wire insulation. But since the typical change in effective wire length is only on the order of 3% or so, high accuracy isn't required. I believe I recall your mentioning a multi-turn loop in an earlier posting. The insulation feature in these programs doesn't model the effect of insulation between wires, which might be an important factor for a multi-turn loop. It only models the effect of the insulation on the wire's self impedance. So use with care. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Owen Duffy wrote: Roy Lewallen wrote in news:130125qpgle3i23 @corp.supernews.com: Owen Duffy wrote: My version of EZNEC (a pay for version) appears not to model insulation. You have v. 3.0. Wire insulation was one of the features added at v. 4.0. Yes, that is correct. Where V4 uses the NEC2 engine, is insulation modelled the same way as in NEC4? If not, is the accuracy comparable? Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: The EZNEC insulation modeling method is basically similar to that used by NEC-4, but different. The accuracy is comparable. Both programs (EZNEC and NEC-4) are accurate only for thin layers of material with relatively low conductivity and permittivity, i.e., like typical wire insulation. But since the typical change in effective wire length is only on the order of 3% or so, high accuracy isn't required. I believe I recall your mentioning a multi-turn loop in an earlier posting. The insulation feature in these programs doesn't model the effect of insulation between wires, which might be an important factor for a multi-turn loop. It only models the effect of the insulation on the wire's self impedance. So use with care. Thanks Roy. My interest is in small single turn untuned loops loaded with 50 ohms. IMHO, the accuracy of modelling practical multi turn loops becomes an issue because of the distributed capacitance and possibly proximity effect. A small test was done recently where one of my loop designs with Antenna Factor predicted by an NEC2 model was compared on BPL emission measurement over a range of HF frequencies with a calibrated R&S active loop, and the median of the difference was around 0.5dB from memory, InterQuartileRange was less than 1dB... so that provides some confidence that the models are sound. I think I recall responding to someone else's post about peformance of multiturn loops. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: The EZNEC insulation modeling method is basically similar to that used by NEC-4, but different. The accuracy is comparable. Both programs (EZNEC and NEC-4) are accurate only for thin layers of material with relatively low conductivity and permittivity, i.e., like typical wire insulation. But since the typical change in effective wire length is only on the order of 3% or so, high accuracy isn't required. Roy, I went back and re-read Cebik's notes about the way in which the IS card is processed vs using and LD card to add inductive loading. He passes on an explanation: ===quote In calculating the E-field for each segment in a model NEC calculates a "cosine" component, a "sine" component, and a "constant" component. NEC then sums the three fields to arrive at a total field value for each segment. LD commands modify the "constant" component of the E-field calculation, whereas IS commands (in NEC-4) modify the "cosine" component. As a consequence, any workaround formulation will result in satisfying only a limited range of geometries. ===equote It was with this in mind that I chose to head down the NEC4 path. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Owen Duffy wrote in news:Xns98FAA23A9BF6nonenowhere@
61.9.191.5: Roy Lewallen wrote in : The EZNEC insulation modeling method is basically similar to that used by NEC-4, but different. The accuracy is comparable. Both programs (EZNEC and NEC-4) are accurate only for thin layers of material with relatively low conductivity and permittivity, i.e., like typical wire insulation. But since the typical change in effective wire length is only on the order of 3% or so, high accuracy isn't required. I believe I recall your mentioning a multi-turn loop in an earlier posting. The insulation feature in these programs doesn't model the effect of insulation between wires, which might be an important factor for a multi-turn loop. It only models the effect of the insulation on the wire's self impedance. So use with care. Thanks Roy. My interest is in small single turn untuned loops loaded with 50 ohms. IMHO, the accuracy of modelling practical multi turn loops becomes an issue because of the distributed capacitance and possibly proximity effect. A small test was done recently where one of my loop designs with Antenna Factor predicted by an NEC2 model was compared on BPL emission measurement over a range of HF frequencies with a calibrated R&S active loop, and the median of the difference was around 0.5dB from memory, InterQuartileRange was less than 1dB... so that provides some confidence that the models are sound. I think I recall responding to someone else's post about peformance of multiturn loops. When I make loops (usually out of LMR400), I use my antenna analyzer to get them to resonate properly and to match them. I really don't care what the insulation is doing because the analyzer will tell me anyway. BTW, a 1-turn LMR400 loop is about as good as an 80m hamstick, but a whole lot more narrow! -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Dave Oldridge wrote in
9: .... When I make loops (usually out of LMR400), I use my antenna analyzer to get them to resonate properly and to match them. I really don't care what the insulation is doing because the analyzer will tell me anyway. BTW, a 1-turn LMR400 loop is about as good as an 80m hamstick, but a whole lot more narrow! Thanks, but that approach cannot provide the information that I need. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
I'd appreciate and welcome reports from anyone who finds a significant
difference in insulated wire results between EZNEC and NEC-4, in the region where both should be accurate (typical wire insulation values). Roy Lewallen, W7EL Owen Duffy wrote: Roy, I went back and re-read Cebik's notes about the way in which the IS card is processed vs using and LD card to add inductive loading. He passes on an explanation: ===quote In calculating the E-field for each segment in a model NEC calculates a "cosine" component, a "sine" component, and a "constant" component. NEC then sums the three fields to arrive at a total field value for each segment. LD commands modify the "constant" component of the E-field calculation, whereas IS commands (in NEC-4) modify the "cosine" component. As a consequence, any workaround formulation will result in satisfying only a limited range of geometries. ===equote It was with this in mind that I chose to head down the NEC4 path. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: I'd appreciate and welcome reports from anyone who finds a significant difference in insulated wire results between EZNEC and NEC-4, in the region where both should be accurate (typical wire insulation values). Roy, My comment is not intended to impune EZNEC in any way. I don't know how EZNEC v4 models insulation, and cannot comment on it. I have read a description on Cebik's page about modelling the effects of insulation by loading all segments with a constant value of L which apparently makes a insulated wire half wave dipole model in NEC2 calibrate well with NEC4' IS model. It would seem that the amount of the inductance was chosen empirically, a curve was fitted to the experimental model data. It occurs to me that the results depend to an extent on the current distribution on the conductor, and might be different for a small loop where the current is almost uniform. The reason for the study is to be prepared to fend off criticism from opponents (the BPL industry, the FCC etc) who might criticise performance modelled on bare wire when everyone wants to make the loops from insulated wire. I can defend a NEC4 IS model, but if there are questions about the accuracy of LD loading of a small loop based on empirical data from half wave dipoles, I am in a weaker position and possibly worse than NEC2 models of bare wire. Modelling the insulation is probably splitting hairs. If I address that, the next question will be over using stranded wire vs single core. Owen |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Owen Duffy wrote:
. . . I have read a description on Cebik's page about modelling the effects of insulation by loading all segments with a constant value of L which apparently makes a insulated wire half wave dipole model in NEC2 calibrate well with NEC4' IS model. It would seem that the amount of the inductance was chosen empirically, a curve was fitted to the experimental model data. It occurs to me that the results depend to an extent on the current distribution on the conductor, and might be different for a small loop where the current is almost uniform. An underlying assumption in any NEC model is that the current in any given segment varies only a small amount from one end to the other. Therefore, any criteria applicable to a loop should also apply to other geometries. If not, then the other geometry has an insufficient number of segments. I would, however, use NEC-4 if in your shoes, because the source code is available for scrutiny. Be careful, though, since there have been quite a few modifications to NEC-4 since its introduction, and various compilations can also give slightly different results. None of the changes have been in the insulated wire calculation that I'm aware of, however. The reason for the study is to be prepared to fend off criticism from opponents (the BPL industry, the FCC etc) who might criticise performance modelled on bare wire when everyone wants to make the loops from insulated wire. I can defend a NEC4 IS model, but if there are questions about the accuracy of LD loading of a small loop based on empirical data from half wave dipoles, I am in a weaker position and possibly worse than NEC2 models of bare wire. Modelling the insulation is probably splitting hairs. If I address that, the next question will be over using stranded wire vs single core. It is indeed splitting hairs. The effect will be so small it will be hard to see in a model (except possibly in the resonance of a very high Q loop) and probably impossible to discern by measurement of a real loop. But then your modeling and measurements will show you that. Stranded wire might noticeably reduce the Q of a very high Q loop, but I couldn't be sure. Its effect can be seen in coaxial cable, but the field distribution around the center conductor is very different than for an antenna wire. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
The effect of insulation on small loops
Roy Lewallen wrote in
: .... Thanks for the thoughts Roy, appreciated. Owen |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com