RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
"John Smith" wrote in message ... And the skills test is, find the missing "not" in the previous post! ;-) Regards, JS |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote: and that the characteristic impedence will vary along an antennas length. Well, that's obviously false. The characteristic impedance of a horizontal wire above ground is constant at 138*log(4D/d) The characteristic impedance is not to be confused with the voltage to current ratio existing on a standing-wave antenna any more than the characteristic impedance of a transmission line is to be confused with the voltage to current radio existing along its length when the SWR is not 1:1. Interesting point. When I use a gamma match on a 1/2 wave vertical with counterpoise, I have always wondered about the 50ohm impedance point where the gamma taps the element. To end feed the antenna, an impedance of thousands of ohms is encountered, a, seemingly, "strange" distance up the element (in regards to total element length) and a 50 ohm impedance point is encountered (needing only a series capacitive reactance to correct for the gamma rods' inductive reactance.) It would be interesting if I had a formula which would predict what impedance would be encountered for all points along the element--know of any? I have looked at setting up such a formula, but frankly have been unsuccessful ... and of course, it is given that antenna length IS resonate for the frequency in question. Regards, JS |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:41:42 -0800, John Smith
wrote: A careful argument based on semantics, the authors choice of words, and standing on the arguments that no mistakes exist in our present knowledge and that new discoveries in the deep workings of antennas are yet to be discovered ... Talk about a mouthful of ****. Spit it out tell us how your really feel. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:41:42 -0800, John Smith wrote: A careful argument based on semantics, the authors choice of words, and standing on the arguments that no mistakes exist in our present knowledge and that new discoveries in the deep workings of antennas are yet to be discovered ... Talk about a mouthful of ****. Spit it out tell us how your really feel. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Huh? You jest, you have better mental comprehension than that ... What, you applying for SSI disability and attempting to use your posts to prove mental incompetence? Mad Cow Disease? ??? Get real ... yawn. JS |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
Michael Black wrote:
Of course, such columns are relatively easy to write, since it's a filtering of a lot of material down to it's essence. No, it's such comments that are easy to write. Now try doing it :-) -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
"Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:47:05 -0000, "Mike Kaliski" wrote: It seems that everyone was so busy laughing on this newsgroup, Hi Mike, As well crafted a line for trolling as any.... that no one has actually provided any information as to whether any detailed research has ever been carried out as to what is going on within the radiating elements of an antenna. This, as the lawyers would say, argues a fact not yet in evidence. Your statement appears to be one that can only be satisfied by meeting a string of conditions: 1. The actuality of "actually," who is the arbiter of this? This group has long experienced denial by inventors that their theories have never been "actually" disproved. "Actually" is one of those rubbery words that fits any argument that lack definition; 2. "detailed research?" Another qualifier that invites the rejection of any contribution for lacking unspecified requirements; 3. "what is going on?" Now THERE is a technical goal for detailed research to be provided as information. 4. "within the radiating elements?" Is this to presume there is some distinct radiation from "within" elements? This would be a remarkable measurement achievement to tease it out from the rest. [Could we use a Gaussian sieve?] There is loads of theory in the text books, but I If you moved to the fiction shelves would you say there is loads of drama in them? [More to the matter, what would you expect?] have yet to see any empirical measurements or results. Of what? Actual detailed results of what is going on within radiating elements? Help us out here. What instrumentation would be used? What units of measure would be employed? (In "what is going on" are we talking about Ohms, Volts, Amperes; or swimming, having a party, or getting laid off?). What qualifies as detail? How would we recognize it being actual? I am aware of the research into small loops carried out by Professor Underhill (also published in RadCom) but it seems that even his results have been disputed. Hmm, tantalizing, but how do small loops relate to "what is actually going on?" More so, where within the loop did Professor Underhill make his measurements, and what were they of? [I might point out here, editorially, that little content was posted by you up until this point, and it has evaporated following its solitary mention. If you stripped out everything, and simply fleshed out this sentence into a paragraph, it might be meaningful.] I may have submitted the post, tongue in cheek Then the joviality that your post heralds is merited, isn't it? This is called leading with your chin. , to stir things up a bit, but on reflection there seems to be something of merit in the idea. As your post seems to be wholly unrelated to the topic, and apparently a stream of consciousness from another thread, then this idea is adorned with rather vague suggestions. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard Thanks for yor comments and encouragement. I can well understand your skepticism and accept that this idea is pretty far out. As you rightly point out, there are a whole host of issues revolving around what is being defined, measurement methods and interpretation of results. The small transmitting loop efficiency experiments were carried out using thermographic imaging to try and identify areas of heating within the loops. The areas with maximum heating would indicate high current flow or high resistance. This information was used to try and derive a theory of operation and efficiency figures for the loops. The idea being to prove that efficiency was in fact higher than predicted by the Chu theory. The methodology and results of the experiment were challenged and Chu theory seems to have won out, at least for the time being. I don't see that there would be any need to invoke non standard units for experimental measurements, ohms, amps and volts should suffice. I have not worked out the best measurement methods or instrumentation to use, but I am sure that existing equipment and techniques will suffice. Small sampling coils, hall effect devices, temperature measurement probes and thermal cameras are all available at prices which an amateur experimenter can afford, so there is no reason why these experiments could not be carried out in a domestic environment rather then an industrial one. The reason for specifying a single radiating element is because directional and reflecting elements absorb and re-radiate RF energy. Once the properties of a single element are known, then it is possible to add additional elements and make further measurements and assessments of performance. Since it is already known that all the elements of an antenna interact with one another, it is important to start with the basics and work up from there. The choice of the word 'within' was unfortunate because I accept that there is nothing going on actually within an antenna element, skin effect ensuring that RF travels on the outside of conductors. So I come back to my assertion that very little detail seems to have been published about what is happening really close in to antennas i.e. on the actual elements making up the antenna. Loads of stuff about near field and far field experiments, but not specific points of radiation from the antenna elements. It may all be a complete waste of time but at least I will have fun and hopefully learn some new stuff doing it. Regards Mike G0ULI |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: and that the characteristic impedence will vary along an antennas length. Well, that's obviously false. The characteristic impedance of a horizontal wire above ground is constant at 138*log(4D/d) The characteristic impedance is not to be confused with the voltage to current ratio existing on a standing-wave antenna any more than the characteristic impedance of a transmission line is to be confused with the voltage to current radio existing along its length when the SWR is not 1:1. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil Are you sure you are not confusing the characteristic impedance of a dipole antenna with the characteristic impedence of an open feed line? One is constant, the other appears to vary along its length. A dipole antenna has low impedence at a centre feed point and high impedence at it's ends. Reminds me of the tales of old ladies who used to tie knots in electric flex to stop the electricity leaking out! I actually met one in real life many years ago. Mike G0ULI |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: The characteristic impedance of a horizontal wire above ground is constant at 138*log(4D/d) The characteristic impedance is not to be confused with the voltage to current ratio existing on a standing-wave antenna any more than the characteristic impedance of a transmission line is to be confused with the voltage to current radio existing along its length when the SWR is not 1:1. Have you verified this experimentally, Cecil? If you did, how did you do it? Here's a quote from "Antennas Theory" by Balanis: "The current and voltage distributions on open-ended wire antennas are similar to the standing wave patterns on open-ended transmission lines. .... Standing wave antennas, such as the dipole, can be analyzed as traveling wave antennas with waves propagating in opposite directions (forward and backward) and represented by traveling wave currents If and Ib ..." As Balanis suggests, the body of technical knowledge available for "open-ended transmission lines" is applicable to "open-ended wire antennas", e.g. dipoles, which really are nothing but lossy *single-wire* transmission lines. That characteristic impedance equation for a single-wire transmission lines can be found in numerous publications and is close to a purely resistive value. A #14 horizontal wire 30 feet above ground is very close to a characteristic impedance of 600 ohms. (One half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole is simply a lossy 1/4 wavelength stub with Z0 = ~600 ohms.) Before he passed, Reg Edwards had some earlier comments on the characteristic impedance of a 1/2WL dipole above ground. Like a normal transmission line open stub, a 1/2WL dipole supports standing waves that can be analyzed. For the purposes of a voltage and current analysis, I^2*R losses and radiation losses can be lumped together into total losses associated with some attenuation factor, similar to analyzing a 1/4WL lossy normal stub. In fact, the losses to radiation from one half of a 1/2WL dipole can be simulated by EZNEC using resistance wire in a 1/4WL open stub. Using EZNEC with a resistivity of 2.3 uohm/m for a 1/4WL open stub gives a pretty good model of what is happening with one half of a 1/2WL dipole which is only a lossy single-wire transmission line above earth. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
Mike Kaliski wrote:
Are you sure you are not confusing the characteristic impedance of a dipole antenna with the characteristic impedence of an open feed line? One is constant, the other appears to vary along its length. A dipole antenna has low impedence at a centre feed point and high impedence at it's ends. The feedpoint impedance of a stub is NOT the same thing as the Z0 of the stub. The feedpoint impedance of an antenna is NOT the same thing as the Z0 of the antenna. The characteristic impedance of a #14 wire 30 feet above the ground is close to constant at 600 ohms. The formula for a single-wire transmission line is 138*log(4D/d). A horizontal dipole is nothing more than a single-wire transmission line which is known to be lossy. The characteristic impedance of a transmission line is constant. If the SWR 1, the voltage to current ratio varies along its length. That varying impedance (V/I) is NOT the characteristic impedance which is constant. The characteristic impedance of a horizontal dipole is ~constant. Since a dipole is a standing wave antenna, the voltage to current ratio varies along its length. That varying impedance (V/I) is NOT the characteristic impedance which is relatively constant for a horizontal wire. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
RSGB RadCom December 2007 Issue
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:29:08 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote: Thanks for yor comments and encouragement. I can well understand your skepticism and accept that this idea is pretty far out. As you rightly point out, there are a whole host of issues revolving around what is being defined, measurement methods and interpretation of results. Hi Mike, OK, but this still tells me nothing of what issue you think I am skeptical about! The small transmitting loop efficiency experiments were carried out using thermographic imaging to try and identify areas of heating within the loops. Good, that is instructive. The areas with maximum heating would indicate high current flow or high resistance. More properly, their product - Watts. This information was used to try and derive a theory of operation and efficiency figures for the loops. The idea being to prove that efficiency was in fact higher than predicted by the Chu theory. This names only one theory and doesn't actually illustrate any differences. The methodology and results of the experiment were challenged and Chu theory seems to have won out, at least for the time being. Again, all of this is suggestive, not informative. Returning to your earlier complaint of "detailed research" we have no details beyond heat imaging challenging the establishment. I don't see that there would be any need to invoke non standard units for experimental measurements, ohms, amps and volts should suffice. Too often, this group has to wade through "what it is not" instead of "what it is." Tell us what specific units would be convincing for you, as you have introduced a complaint that needs to be satisfied. I have not worked out the best measurement methods or instrumentation to use, but I am sure that existing equipment and techniques will suffice. I have worked on a world of instruments (more than anyone here). Believe me, that experience has NOT answered the question of the ages. Small sampling coils, hall effect devices, temperature measurement probes and thermal cameras are all available at prices which an amateur experimenter can afford, so there is no reason why these experiments could not be carried out in a domestic environment rather then an industrial one. OK, by induction, I presume you are harkening back to these thermal maps or imaging. Well, in fact they have been done, their results have been posted to the net and argued here. You didn't get the invitation? Unfortunately, that contributor was arguing smaller loops, coils specifically and the mapping was tangential to the rant. He promised more data when Spring weather would allow him to pursue this line of inquiry, but that was several Springs ago, and he has in the interval chosen to -um- till the same ground. The reason for specifying a single radiating element is because directional and reflecting elements absorb and re-radiate RF energy. Once the properties of a single element are known, then it is possible to add additional elements and make further measurements and assessments of performance. Since it is already known that all the elements of an antenna interact with one another, it is important to start with the basics and work up from there. True, and certainly it stands to improve clarity by reducing variables. The choice of the word 'within' was unfortunate because I accept that there is nothing going on actually within an antenna element, skin effect ensuring that RF travels on the outside of conductors. Plus, thermal imaging would be hard pressed to peer inside a conductor. So I come back to my assertion that very little detail seems to have been published about what is happening really close in to antennas i.e. on the actual elements making up the antenna. Loads of stuff about near field and far field experiments, but not specific points of radiation from the antenna elements. It may all be a complete waste of time but at least I will have fun and hopefully learn some new stuff doing it. You mean you are unfamiliar with this work. I've posted my own here to little attention, I don't think this cycle will attract much more, but here it is: http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...pole/index.htm This doesn't actually attend your preference of thermal mapping, but you are still vague to the point of "what is happening really close in to antennas" (even qualified by "on the actual elements" - there's that word actual again which lends nothing to a specification). There is an entire field of Science devoted to this (beyond the scope of many here who would anticipate my answer being "Fields"). This field is called Plasmonics. Books are written about it, pictures are taken of it, and I've sat through hours of presentations demonstrating it. Unfortunately, this crowd of investigators, like Arthur, have re-invented the wheel and they proclaim it is square. The long and short of it is that you stand to become more confused, but it could be rewarding if you wear asbestos. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com