Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 01:58 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 52
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna'son my homepage

On 02/23/2011 10:00 AM, RadioWaves wrote:
Today I have put my homepage online with information about the Magnetic Loop
Antenna.

http://www.qsl.net/pa7nr/

PA7NR


Hmmm. A "magnetic" loop antenna. Must be some other types of loop
antennas as well. Maybe there are also "electric" loop antennas.

Guess they left something out of all those antenna textbooks I have ;-)
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail:
  #42   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 02:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 329
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's onmy homepage

On 2 mar, 13:58, "J.B. Wood" wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:00 AM, RadioWaves wrote: Today I have put my homepage online with information about the Magnetic Loop
Antenna.


http://www.qsl.net/pa7nr/


PA7NR


Hmmm. *A "magnetic" loop antenna. *Must be some other types of loop
antennas as well. *Maybe there are also "electric" loop antennas.

Guess they left something out of all those antenna textbooks I have ;-)
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

--
J. B. Wood * * * * * * * * *e-mail:


Hello John,

When you cut the loop at two opposite positions, yes, you can make
your "electric" loop.

It will generate lots of E-field, you may need another coil for
matching, and it is probably less efficient then a short straight
dipole with massive capacitive disks to get larger I*delta(le)
product.

Best regards,


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl
In case of PM, please remove abc first.
  #43   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 06:14 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 52
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna'son my homepage

On 3/2/2011 8:40 AM, Wimpie wrote:
On 2 mar, 13:58, "J.B. wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:00 AM, RadioWaves wrote: Today I have put my homepage online with information about the Magnetic Loop
Antenna.


http://www.qsl.net/pa7nr/


PA7NR


Hmmm. A "magnetic" loop antenna. Must be some other types of loop
antennas as well. Maybe there are also "electric" loop antennas.

Guess they left something out of all those antenna textbooks I have ;-)
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail:


Hello John,

When you cut the loop at two opposite positions, yes, you can make
your "electric" loop.

It will generate lots of E-field, you may need another coil for
matching, and it is probably less efficient then a short straight
dipole with massive capacitive disks to get larger I*delta(le)
product.

Best regards,


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl
In case of PM, please remove abc first.


Hello, and the not-so-subtle point is that there aren't magnetic,
electric, or any other such "types" of loop antennas. There are just
loop antennas that can further be described as shielded/unshielded,
balanced/unbalanced, electrically small or large. Just like we don't
transmit (propagate) electric (E) or magnetic (H) fields by themselves.

The purpose of an antenna is to radiate and/or intercept an
electromagnetic field. By definition energy radiated by a transmitting
antenna is not temporarily stored in the antenna's local electric or
magnetic field. It's been released into free space subject to
interception by a receiving antenna(s) or any other parasitic
structures. The receiving antenna transfers part the intercepted energy
to the load (receiver and other dissipative losses) and scatters the
rest back into free space.

By contrast, a transformer, for example, is a "magnetic" device that is
intended to transfer energy by a localized means (induction) other than
the propagation/interception of electromagnetic radiation.

To further confuse the issue, a conductor in the near (reactive) field
of a transmitting antenna will have current induced in it by the
antenna's local electric and/or magnetic fields. However, that's not
the usual purpose for which we design antennas. An exception might be
the immoboliser (PATS) system used in late-model motor vehicles that
incorporates a ring antenna embedded in the steering column that is
closely coupled at RF frequencies to the transponder chip and loop
antenna embedded in the vehicle ignition key. So is it a
transmit-receive antenna configuration or a primary coil-secondary coil
transformer configuration? Given the proximity of the inserted key to
the steering column I would guess the latter. Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail:
  #44   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 06:40 PM
Member
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2011
Location: Tampa florida
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Clark View Post
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 02:25:00 +0000, ka7niq
wrote:

This has been a good thread, I have little room for an antenna, a mag
loop may be just the ticket for my small Tampa QTH ?


Hi OM,

Well, as you can imagine (barring the numerous errors and moral
judgments), it all depends upon the band you want to operate - with
the 40M and higher frequencies quite well served.

A lot of myth surrounds what are called "magnetic loops" and this
thread has corralled some of them - including from Norbert as his page
which forces the argument that fairly agrees that below 40M
performance dives. However, through sloppy bookkeeping, the Ciro
Mazzoni line is not one I would walk away from for stated
"inefficiencies."

The principle consideration is the ratio between radiation resistance
(power that is expressed into making contacts) and Ohmic loss (bulk
metal conductivity power that is expressed into making heat). Wimpie's
choice of 20mm diameter stock (how that arrived in the mix is a
mystery) compares poorly with the Ciro Mazzoni 50mm tubing for its
smallest design.

The 80M design from the vendor uses 75mm stock for good reason and
this should be a selection guide for your application. Their second
80M design uses 140mm stock! Pushing this further with conductance
now nailed down, you want a large loop because the radiation
resistance varies by the fourth power of dimension. That is to say,
if you double the loop radius, you obtain 16 times the radiation
resistance. Small changes in loop radius can quickly escalate or
emasculate efficiency. Radiation resistance is the beneficial
characteristic of how we manage to couple a signal out into space and
which is typically thought of as being 50 Ohms (although this is
rarely the actual value that more often varies between 35 and 70 Ohms
for simple wire antennas of conventional length).

As you can see from these resistance figures, the difference between a
radiation resistance in the thousandths of an Ohm, and typical values
in the tens of Ohms is a hallmark for caution. When paired with metal
resistance in the Ohms (something that ordinarily only comes with
using wire-wrap wire for long runs), you want to boost radiation
resistance as high as possible. When paired with metal resistance
that is in the thousandths of Ohms, there is every chance you are
looking at 50% efficiency for 1 meter diameter loops.

Bigger radius comes with its own problem, however. It limits the high
band of operation as these designs are optimized for being a small
portion of wavelength. Observe the various design options from Ciro
Mazzoni, and you will observe they are specified over only two octaves
for any particular design. That should give you a clue if you want to
homebrew your own, because you will encounter the same limitations of
coverage regardless of construction method.

So, this returns us to the first statement above: it all depends on
which band(s) you want to work. It further depends upon your pain
threshold for poor efficiency if you choose to push beyond the
coverage limits. Professionals describe this in terms of a
cost/benefit ratio. If we restrict discussion to non-professional
qualitative expressions of benefit: super, great, fantastic, maximum
and peg escalating dollar amounts to each with corresponding
breathless emphasis - then there are many deals for sale on those
terms for the gullible.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
OK, IF you just wanted to buy a magnetic loop antenna vs build one, what are the ones to look at that are for sale, and why ? AEA once made one when I left Tampa and lived out west in Seattle. I live in a small, non deed restricted house in Tampa with a flat membrane roof. I could get a loop on my roof I suppose, if the installation looked clean.
__________________
Ka7niq
http://www.saferoofcleaning.com
  #45   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 08:39 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 52
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna'son my homepage

On 3/2/2011 12:14 PM, J.B. Wood wrote:
On 3/2/2011 8:40 AM, Wimpie wrote:



To further confuse the issue, a conductor in the near (reactive) field
of a transmitting antenna will have current induced in it by the
antenna's local electric and/or magnetic fields. However, that's not the
usual purpose for which we design antennas.


Hello, all. I should also add that in stating the above I was only
considering nearby conductors (towers, metal on buildings, etc) and
wasn't including the local directors/reflectors that may be incorporated
into an antenna to provide the desired radiation pattern
characteristics. Sincerely,


--
J. B. Wood e-mail:


  #46   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 09:56 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 329
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's onmy homepage

Hello John,

On 2 mar, 18:14, "J.B. Wood" wrote:
On 3/2/2011 8:40 AM, Wimpie wrote:



On 2 mar, 13:58, "J.B. *wrote:
On 02/23/2011 10:00 AM, RadioWaves wrote: *Today I have put my homepage online with information about the Magnetic Loop
Antenna.


http://www.qsl.net/pa7nr/


PA7NR


Hmmm. *A "magnetic" loop antenna. *Must be some other types of loop
antennas as well. *Maybe there are also "electric" loop antennas.


Guess they left something out of all those antenna textbooks I have ;-)
Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,


--
J. B. Wood * * * * * * * * *e-mail:


Hello John,


When you cut the loop at two opposite positions, yes, you can make
your "electric" loop.


It will generate lots of E-field, you may need another coil for
matching, and it is probably less efficient then a short straight
dipole with massive capacitive disks to get larger I*delta(le)
product.


Best regards,


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl
In case of PM, please remove abc first.


Hello, and the not-so-subtle point is that there aren't magnetic,
electric, or any other such "types" of loop antennas. *There are just
loop antennas that can further be described as shielded/unshielded,
balanced/unbalanced, electrically small or large. *Just like we don't
transmit (propagate) electric (E) or magnetic (H) fields by themselves.

The purpose of an antenna is to radiate and/or intercept an
electromagnetic field. *By definition energy radiated by a transmitting
antenna is not temporarily stored in the antenna's local electric or
magnetic field. *It's been released into free space subject to
interception by a receiving antenna(s) or any other parasitic
structures. *The receiving antenna transfers part the intercepted energy
to the load (receiver and other dissipative losses) and scatters the
rest back into free space.

By contrast, a transformer, for example, is a "magnetic" device that is
intended to transfer energy by a localized means (induction) other than
the propagation/interception of electromagnetic radiation.


If in your opinion there do not exist antennas that generate a
dominant magnetic or electric field (in the near field), then you are
contradicting yourself, as you can't transfer energy with a magnetic
field or electric field only. So your transformer also involves
electric fields. Maybe you should look into the Poynting theorem.

To further confuse the issue, a conductor in the near (reactive) field
of a transmitting antenna will have current induced in it by the
antenna's local electric and/or magnetic fields. *However, that's not
the usual purpose for which we design antennas. *An exception might be
the immoboliser (PATS) system used in late-model motor vehicles that
incorporates a ring antenna embedded in the steering column that is
closely coupled at RF frequencies to the transponder chip and loop
antenna embedded in the vehicle ignition key. *So is it a
transmit-receive antenna configuration or a primary coil-secondary coil
transformer configuration? *Given the proximity of the inserted key to
the steering column I would guess the latter. *Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood * * * * * * * * *e-mail:


When a noise source is about 5..10m away from an 3.6 MHz antenna, the
coupling of that noise source towards a "magnetic" loop antenna may be
different from the coupling towards an "electric" antenna, though
both antennas may produce the same far field radiation. This is not
from a textbook, but from experience (I am also working in power
electronics).

I fully agree with you on the far field statements, but when you live
in an apartment (where significant spurious emission from home
equipment are in the near field of your 3.6 MHz antenna), a so-called
magnetic loop antenna may behave different (w.r.t. a short "electric"
dipole). It can be worse or better. Many radio amateurs know this from
experiments, without knowing the EM theory behind it.

I have no problems when people talk about a "magnetic loop antenna".
It shows me that they are discussing an antenna with a circumference
0.2 lambda. When people talk about a "loop antenna", it can be
anything.

Best regards,


Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl




  #47   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 11, 11:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's on my homepage

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:56:23 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

When a noise source is about 5..10m away from an 3.6 MHz antenna, the
coupling of that noise source towards a "magnetic" loop antenna may be
different from the coupling towards an "electric" antenna, though
both antennas may produce the same far field radiation. This is not
from a textbook, but from experience (I am also working in power
electronics).


Text books would enlarge that volume to one half to several
wavelengths for the "near field." The text books would further
clarify this with math (yes, I know, professional and academic
discussion in light of this being an amateur forum is anathema) and
define the difference with the terms Fresnel diffraction (near-field)
and Fraunhofer diffraction (far-field). The operative physical length
of the antenna becomes meaningful, but this is getting ahead of what I
call the "benchmark" method below.

To give the magnetic loop aficionados the benefit of this, all local
noise within 100 feet would be susceptible to interfering and it
wouldn't be nullable (which is a characteristic only observed in the
far-field) except by polarization which is very haphazard in the
near-field. I have never seen a magnetic loop mount with the
necessary degrees of freedom to employ this method of "nulling." As
such, the vaunted characteristic is elusive and thus becomes legendary
rather than fulfilled.

However, the term "near-field" is rather vague. The more appropriate
discussion is found in "reactive near field" and "radiative near
field." The discussion of loop coupling to magnetic (while ignoring
electric) fields would suggest "reactive near field." In this regard,
the 80M volume of reactive interference is still roughly 100 feet in
all directions. The "radiative near field" would encompass a volume
out to 80 meters (roughly 250 feet). In either case, apartment living
finds no panacea in loop antennas.

There is another, non-textual (at least to the casual reader),
benchmark that such issues are measured by the physical spread of the
antenna itself (this usually attends discussion of capture area to
many's frustration). Here, I am returning to the allusion above of
Fresnel diffraction (near-field) and Fraunhofer diffraction
(far-field). The math (non-techs, turn your eyes away) is as simple
as:
2·D²/lambda

Let's work some examples from the sublime to the ridiculous on 80M.

The traditional half-wave dipole antenna that exhibits the traditional
usage for distinguishing between near and far:
2·40²/80 = 40 meters
a smaller quarter-wave dipole antenna
2·20²/80 = 10 meters
a tenth wave dipole antenna
2·8²/80 = 1.6 meters
a fortieth wave dipole antenna
2·2²/80 = 10 centimeters

Let's see where discussion follows in this regard.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #48   Report Post  
Old March 3rd 11, 12:29 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 329
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's onmy homepage

Hello Richard,

On 2 mar, 23:10, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:56:23 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

When a noise source is about 5..10m *away from an 3.6 MHz antenna, the
coupling of that noise source towards a "magnetic" loop antenna may be
different *from the coupling towards an "electric" antenna, though
both antennas may produce the same far field radiation. *This is not
from a textbook, but from experience (I am also working in power
electronics).


Text books would enlarge that volume to one half to several
wavelengths for the "near field." *The text books would further
clarify this with math (yes, I know, professional and academic
discussion in light of this being an amateur forum is anathema) and
define the difference with the terms Fresnel diffraction (near-field)
and Fraunhofer diffraction (far-field). *The operative physical length
of the antenna becomes meaningful, but this is getting ahead of what I
call the "benchmark" method below.

To give the magnetic loop aficionados the benefit of this, all local
noise within 100 feet would be susceptible to interfering and it
wouldn't be nullable (which is a characteristic only observed in the
far-field) except by polarization which is very haphazard in the
near-field. *I have never seen a magnetic loop mount with the
necessary degrees of freedom to employ this method of "nulling." *As
such, the vaunted characteristic is elusive and thus becomes legendary
rather than fulfilled.

However, the term "near-field" is rather vague. *The more appropriate
discussion is found in "reactive near field" and "radiative near
field." *The discussion of loop coupling to magnetic (while ignoring
electric) fields would suggest "reactive near field." *In this regard,
the 80M volume of reactive interference is still roughly 100 feet in
all directions. *The "radiative near field" would encompass a volume
out to 80 meters (roughly 250 feet). *In either case, apartment living
finds no panacea in loop antennas.

There is another, non-textual (at least to the casual reader),
benchmark that such issues are measured by the physical spread of the
antenna itself (this usually attends discussion of capture area to
many's frustration). *Here, I am returning to the allusion above of
Fresnel diffraction (near-field) and Fraunhofer diffraction
(far-field). *The math (non-techs, turn your eyes away) is as simple
as:
* * * * 2 D /lambda

Let's work some examples from the sublime to the ridiculous on 80M.

The traditional half-wave dipole antenna that exhibits the traditional
usage for distinguishing between near and far:
* * * * 2 40 /80 = 40 meters
a smaller quarter-wave dipole antenna
* * * * 2 20 /80 = 10 meters
a tenth wave dipole antenna
* * * * 2 8 /80 = 1.6 meters
a fortieth wave dipole antenna
* * * * 2 2 /80 = 10 centimeters

Let's see where discussion follows in this regard.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC




where is your square?

Fraunhofer region starts at (22.5 degrees phase shift):

r = 2*D^2/lambda

D = largest antenna size (excluding structures that doesn't carry
current).

Formula is only valid for electrically large structures, so not an
electrically small loop or dipole.

For electrically small loops, reactive fields are dominant for:

r 0.16*lambda

Smaller loop size does not result in smaller reactive field zone. The
correct formulas you can find everywhere. To make it easy for you:
http://www.conformity.com/past/0102reflections.html shows the
complete formulas for the electric and magnetic case, and a graph at
the end.


Best regards,

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl





  #49   Report Post  
Old March 3rd 11, 12:58 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's on my homepage

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:40:15 +0000, ka7niq
wrote:


OK, IF you just wanted to buy a magnetic loop antenna vs build one,
what are the ones to look at that are for sale, and why ? AEA once made
one when I left Tampa and lived out west in Seattle. I live in a small,
non deed restricted house in Tampa with a flat membrane roof. I could
get a loop on my roof I suppose, if the installation looked clean.


Hi OM,

The specifications of the major vendors that I have seen are usually
reliable.

You still need to answer what bands do you want to transmit on? If it
is 40M and up, you are pretty sure to find a lot of useful designs.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #50   Report Post  
Old March 3rd 11, 01:50 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Information about my experience with Magnetic Loop antenna's on my homepage

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:29:55 -0800 (PST), Wimpie
wrote:

Formula is only valid for electrically large structures, so not an
electrically small loop or dipole.


"Large" or "small" are not quantities.

For electrically small loops, reactive fields are dominant for:

and how small (quantifiable) is small (qualifiable)?
r 0.16*lambda

given that I have already demonstrated that, and more, what importance
do you attach to this that hasn't already been shown?

Smaller loop size does not result in smaller reactive field zone.


What a curious defense for magnetic antennas's noise immunity.

However, the magnetic antenna is not immune from the reactive fields
of noise emitters that are very much larger than any loop discussed
here. It is the field of the emitter that is important. I thought I
would wait and see if anyone cottoned on to that aspect of the
discussion. If we proceed with the assumption (repeated here):
Smaller loop size does not result in smaller reactive field zone.

then the magnetic antenna is doomed to noise in the same sense as an
electric antenna is. Offhand I would speculate that in an apartment
situation, a magnetic antenna on the balcony is saturated with
reactive noise fields.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SBS-1 - information. Does anyone have any experience with ? Andy[_3_] Scanner 0 July 14th 07 02:58 PM
Material of wi does it affect a loop antenna's performance? ungvichian Antenna 11 December 13th 06 02:03 AM
Magnetic Loop !!! Lee Antenna 32 October 2nd 05 11:53 PM
Dipole vs. Delta loop vs. Quad loop -pratical experience Jim Leder Antenna 9 February 23rd 05 12:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017