Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 31 okt, 20:12, Scott Stephens wrote:
Wimpie wrote: On 31 okt, 10:17, Scott Stephens wrote: Since antennas have reactance and radiation resistance, are they always critically damped, or will they ring-down? Is this implied by a swr plot? Can I take 3db points as antenna bandwidth and assume a radiation-resistance loaded-Q from that? Does feed-point impedance change radiation resistance? Thanks Hello, Thin half wave dipoles can also be modeled with a RLC circuit. * The R is *frequency dependent, but in a limited frequency range, a simple RLC circuit is useful. When more accuracy is required , or larger frequency range, a transmission line model with lumped losses is better. HW dipoles close to perfect conducting ground have narrow useful BW, hence high Q factor and the RLC model matches better. As I suspected/feared. If I try to design a pulse generator for a TDR in spice, I'll have to synthesize an appropriate frequency-dependent radiation-resistor. Thicker dipoles have wider bandwidth (so lower Q factor). *In that case even within the useful frequency range the radiation resistance varies (it increases with increasing frequency). *When the Thickness of the dipole (think of a biconical dipole), *is in the range of 0.15 lambda or more, *Q factor will be that low, that you can hardly see the exponential decaying sinusoidal wave (so it behaves more like a heavily damped circuit). Yes, I've noticed UWB antenna look like horns or loops of wide straps If you have access to EM simulation SW you might simulate a construction and compare the impedance versus frequency for your LRC equivalent model. Perhaps an inverse-Fourier transform of that Z vs. freq plot can give me a time-domain impulse graph? Back to your question, most narrow band antennas are not critically damped and have an impulse response with exponential decaying sinusoidal wave shape. * Are you in GPR or equivalent? Yes, I'm interested in TDR and GPR. Thanks, Scott, KB9ETU- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Hello Scot, Now it becomes a different story. You are talking about large relative BW. The concept of radiation resistance is nice for small structures, but in case of large structures (for example traveling wave antennas), you get (for example) impedance transformation. A flaring and widening parallel strip transmission line has almost constant real input impedance for frequencies above the quarter wave length, without any resistive damping. However when the design is not OK, the radiation pattern can be frequency dependent and may show notches in the desired direction for certain frequency ranges. Also the radiation centre may vary with frequency. Some wide band antennas create a nice impulse response by absorbing most of the power in resistance (resistive loaded dipole). Others are backed by wide band absorbing material, to avoid frequency selective reflection. So one can make an antenna with close to 50 Ohms real impedance over wide frequency range (so no oscillatory behavior), but it does not mean that such an antenna is good for your application as you also have to consider radiation pattern (versus frequency). Best regards, Wim PA3DJS www.tetech.nl The mail is OK when you remove abc. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
loop vs dipole | Antenna | |||
FYI - New AM {Medium Wave} DX Loop Antenna using Litz Wire plus Longwave LW Lowfer DX Loop Antenna | Shortwave | |||
Dipole vs. Delta loop vs. Quad loop -pratical experience | Antenna | |||
Loop vx Folded Dipole noise factor | Antenna | |||
loop/dipole | Antenna |