Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:37:09 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: Bill How does a person measure the gain of an antenna? Jerry Carefully, I would hope. Hi Bill, Your response hardly carries the water for an argument supporting gain being commonly distinct from directivity. To answer Jerry's question (he probably already knows how) requires the total integration of all power emitted by the radiator - not an easy task (as would confirm Bill's sparse reply) and then measuring power emitted within small volumes (solid angles of sub-radian dimension) to compare against the whole. The most distinctive point to observe about this "gain" is that almost all the power radiated is lost - "almost" being a patronizing term. A simple thought problem will reveal this sad fate. Let us presume you are transmitting 100W with 100% efficiency. Now, lets further presume that the entire population of the planet is monitoring you with S-9 readability. That is (let's be generous), 10 Billion receivers. What is the net result of this massive communication in system efficiency? 0.5% The antenna in the most perfect of circumstances exhibits an absolute loss of 99.5W and I could easily bet no one here even pretends to approach 0.000001% of this. Now, tell me about GAIN. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Wow Richard, measuring antenna gain sounds complicated. I never was good at calculus. Jerry |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:12:08 GMT, "Jerry Martes"
wrote: Wow Richard, measuring antenna gain sounds complicated. I never was good at calculus. Hi Jerry, That's for software to do. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:36:19 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote: For ham radio purposes, antenna gain and directivity are essentially interchangeable. Close enough for Government work. On the other hand, if you try that on your dissertation for your PhD in physics, you may end up working at McDonalds. Hi Bill, My first assignment out of Metrology school was in Charleston S. C. loaned to the SeaBees (because my ship was still in Rota Spain). They took full stock of my million dollar training and found I was qualified to dig ditches in the clay banks along the Charles river. They were impressed I knew which end of the shovel went into the ground and we became fast friends (made me an honorary SeaBee). Navy motto, "those that work hard together, play hard together" (I had already learned that from my Pig-boat buddies.) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:29:56 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote: Knowing the angles the 'Gain' is calculated by dividing 41259 by the product of the horizontal and vertical angles corresponding to the 1/2 power point. [Note: 41259 is the surface of the sphere measured in square steradians.] I'm sure that most are aware that a sphere has 4 Pi steradians, but you've lost me with your number 41259, and what is a "square" steradian? I've never heard of such a thing. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
#65
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Bill First - I want to be clear that I have absolutely no problem with using the term GAIN for describing antenna performance. I did think had not been established, in this thread, that an antena's gain has to be referanced to some standard antenna, like a dipole or theoretical radiator like 'isotropic'. I'd submit that, what we refer to as antenna gain could be more accurately be called 'specific gain'. I also tink that the term Directivity clears up any misunderstanding about what can be done to improve an antenna's performance. And, I realize that my thinking about Gain and about Directivity dont imply that anyone needs to exclude either from their vocabulary I suspect my caution about antenna gain stems from reading specs that display extremely high "gain" numbers while the antennas are actually quite ordinary. Jerry "Bill Turner" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:59:56 GMT, "Jerry Martes" wrote: I'll be carefull if you'll tell me how to do it. Jerry __________________________________________________ _______ Only one "l" in careful Jerry, not a good start. :-) 1. Decide on your reference, most likely a dipole. 2. Measure the field strength of the dipole in its most favored direction. 3. Measure the field strength of the antenna under test in its most favored direction. 4. Calculate the gain or loss of the antenna under test. 5. Post the results here and be prepared for an onslaught of criticism. -- Bill, W6WRT QSLs via LoTW |
#66
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() I suspect my caution about antenna gain stems from reading specs that display extremely high "gain" numbers while the antennas are actually quite ordinary. Absolutely. Whenever I see a gain number that dosen't reference something, I assume they mean dBi, rather than dBd. |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave VanHorn wrote:
Absolutely. Whenever I see a gain number that dosen't reference something, I assume they mean dBi, rather than dBd. Looks like some antenna retailers reference dBdl. :-) (dl stands for dummy load) -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Dave VanHorn wrote: Absolutely. Whenever I see a gain number that dosen't reference something, I assume they mean dBi, rather than dBd. Looks like some antenna retailers reference dBdl. :-) (dl stands for dummy load) I've seen a few antennas that should be spec'd as negative dBdl. ![]() |
#69
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:31:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Dave VanHorn wrote: Absolutely. Whenever I see a gain number that dosen't reference something, I assume they mean dBi, rather than dBd. Looks like some antenna retailers reference dBdl. :-) (dl stands for dummy load) Actually it appears as if some manufacturers only measure the directivity and express it in dB :-), completely ignoring the efficiency, which is often quite low in "exotic" antenna designs. An exotic antenna design with directivity 10 (10 dB) and 10 % efficiency will have a 0 dB gain and will produce the same effective radiation power (ERP) as an omnidirectional (directivity 1 or 0 dB) antenna with 100 % efficiency when using the same transmitter power. Paul OH3LWR |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Mobile Ant L match ? | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna |