Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article
, phaedrus wrote: Hi again, Well I have read your informative replies on the problems with making a low Zo twin feed with much interest. Clearly it's not really a practical proposition. Shame. So the obvious question is: why are transmitters normalised to 50 ohms when clearly 450 ohms would enable us to enjoy cheaper, do-it- yourself, lower loss feeders? Was this some oversight at the time, or good practice for some obscure reason that I simply cannot think of? As others mentioned, the origin is probably based on military standards. It is my understanding that the lowest loss air dielectric Co-Ax would have an impedance of around 75 Ohms. If you use the same mechanical dimensions but with a polyethylene dielectric, the impedance becomes 52 Ohms. Fred K4DII |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article , phaedrus wrote: Hi again, Well I have read your informative replies on the problems with making a low Zo twin feed with much interest. Clearly it's not really a practical proposition. Shame. So the obvious question is: why are transmitters normalised to 50 ohms when clearly 450 ohms would enable us to enjoy cheaper, do-it- yourself, lower loss feeders? Was this some oversight at the time, or good practice for some obscure reason that I simply cannot think of? As others mentioned, the origin is probably based on military standards. It is my understanding that the lowest loss air dielectric Co-Ax would have an impedance of around 75 Ohms. loss, at constant frequency, is proportional to 1/Z * (1/b + 1/a) b= diameter of outer , a = diam of inner This reflects the fact that at lowish frequencies (HF), the loss is ohmic, so it's the series combination of the resistivity of the center and outer conductors (the 1/b+1/a term), and the current flowing (the 1/Z term.. higher Z means lower current, so less IR loss) Z is proportional to log(b/a) so loss = k/log(b/a)*(1/b+1/a) Run the numbers and you see that a ratio of 1:3.6 gets you 50 ohms with epsilon=2.3 and a ratio of 1:6.7 gets you about 75 ohms. At 10 MHz loss is about 0.028 dB/meter for the 50 ohm, and 0.017 dB/meter for the 75 ohm. but you can go higher in Z...and the loss keeps going down, but even at 1:20 diameter ratio, the impedance is 118 ohms, and the loss is 0.010 dB/meter. So 75 isn't a "lowest loss" frequency. More likely, 75 ohms happens to be close to 72 ohms, which is the characteristic impedance of a dipole in free space, or, more usefully, 1/4 of the 300 ohm impedance of a folded dipole. In air, the dimensions and loss a 50 ohm 1:2.3 0.033 dB/meter 75 ohm 1:3.5 0.019 dB/meter If you use the same mechanical dimensions but with a polyethylene dielectric, the impedance becomes 52 Ohms. I think that is just coincidence: Z = 138/sqrt(epsilon)* log (b/a) air has epsilon=1 (or very close) polyethylene has 1/sqrt(epsilon) about 0.66, so, in fact, it happens to work out (e.g. 50/75 = 0.66) |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 23, 4:41*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote: In article , *phaedrus wrote: Hi again, Well I have read your informative replies on the problems with making a low Zo twin feed with much interest. Clearly it's not really a practical proposition. Shame. So the obvious question is: why are transmitters normalised to 50 ohms when clearly 450 ohms would enable us to enjoy cheaper, do-it- yourself, lower loss feeders? Was this some oversight at the time, or good practice for some obscure reason that I simply cannot think of? As others mentioned, the origin is probably based on military standards.. It is my understanding that the lowest loss air dielectric Co-Ax would have an impedance of around 75 Ohms. * loss, at constant frequency, is proportional to 1/Z * (1/b + 1/a) b= diameter of outer , a = diam of inner This reflects the fact that at lowish frequencies (HF), the loss is ohmic, so it's the series combination of the resistivity of the center and outer conductors (the 1/b+1/a term), and the current flowing (the 1/Z term.. higher Z means lower current, so less IR loss) Z is proportional to log(b/a) so loss = k/log(b/a)*(1/b+1/a) Run the numbers and you see that a ratio of 1:3.6 gets you 50 ohms with epsilon=2.3 and a ratio of 1:6.7 gets you about 75 ohms. At 10 MHz loss is about 0.028 dB/meter for the 50 ohm, and 0.017 dB/meter for the 75 ohm. but you can go higher in Z...and the loss keeps going down, but even at 1:20 diameter ratio, the impedance is 118 ohms, and the loss is 0.010 dB/meter. * So 75 isn't a "lowest loss" frequency. *More likely, 75 ohms happens to be close to 72 ohms, which is the characteristic impedance of a dipole in free space, or, more usefully, 1/4 of the 300 ohm impedance of a folded dipole. In air, the dimensions and loss a 50 ohm 1:2.3 0.033 dB/meter 75 ohm 1:3.5 0.019 dB/meter If you use the same mechanical dimensions but with a polyethylene dielectric, the impedance becomes 52 Ohms. I think that is just coincidence: Z = 138/sqrt(epsilon)* log (b/a) air has epsilon=1 (or very close) polyethylene has 1/sqrt(epsilon) about 0.66, so, in fact, it happens to work out (e.g. 50/75 = 0.66) Agreed that (ignoring loss in the dielectric) loss(dB) = k * (1/a + 1/b) / log(b/a) k includes a factor for the permittivity of the dielectric, a factor for unit length of line, and a factor for the units of a and b. Now assume a fixed outer diameter b; does this function have a minimum versus a? Let k=1 and b=1 for convenience (won't affect the ratio b/a at minimum). So, find "a" to minimize y = (1/a + 1)/ log(1/a) I get that to be b/a = 3.5911 or so. It doesn't even matter if you use log10 or natural log; same result. This says that loss for a line constructed the same but with a larger b/a and same b will have higher loss. With vacuum dielectric, the impedance of coax with that 3.59:1 ratio is about 76.7 ohms. With solid polyethylene dielectric, it's about 50.6 ohms. I didn't see anything in your dB/meter numbers about line diameter, and that's clearly important. You can make the line bigger to get lower loss, or smaller and get more loss. Clearly if I keep "a" constant and let "b" grow to get higher impedance, the predicted line loss will go down monotonically with increasing b/a; things fall apart when b becomes a significant fraction of a wavelength, of course. If I calculate the dB loss for air-dielectric lines of several impedances, all with the same outer conductor inside diameter, and ratio the results, here's what I get. Note that the attenuation doesn't really change much with impedance until you get to fairly high or fairly low impedances. Also...simply multiply the Zo numbers by 0.66 to get the ratios for lines filled with solid polyethylene dielectric (again assuming no loss in the dielectric itself; generally accurate up to at least several hundred MHz). Zo (dB/unit length @ Zo)/(dB/unit length of 76.7ohm line) 25 1.682 30 1.475 35 1.333 40 1.231 45 1.157 50 1.103 60 1.035 70 1.005 75 1.000 80 1.001 90 1.018 100 1.052 120 1.168 140 1.350 160 1.607 One shouldn't read too much into these numbers with several significant figures; line attenuation also depends on things like whether the conductors are solid or stranded or braided. Stranding and braiding adds to the loss. 'Nuff for now... Cheers, Tom |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
75 Ohms - It's Not Just For TV Anymore | Shortwave | |||
antenna impedance - calculated 10 - 20 Ohms - measured 36 Ohms?? | Antenna | |||
73 Ohms, How do you get it? | Antenna | |||
DDS 50 ohms buffer ? | Homebrew | |||
DDS 50 ohms buffer ? | Homebrew |