LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 6th 04, 05:28 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Jun 2004 19:02:56 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

That says that narrow bandwidth contributes to higher efficiency
which is how I always understood it.(Though many do not accept that)


Hi Art,

When a low bandwidth antenna has very high efficiency (in the range of
95-98 percent), "more" efficient is not very remarkable.

The problem you are encountering is trying to equate bandwidth/Q with
efficiency. There is an old adage: correlation is not causation. A
successful antenna design is by definition lossy = radiation
resistance. You can reduce this loss to zero, boost the Q, make for a
very small bandwidth and come up with a very inefficient antenna.
Same thing goes for Tube finals' tuning. You don't want narrow
bandwidth/high Q because that means no power will leave the
transmitter. Q for the Finals falls between 10 and 15 because the
load must be a loss.

The coil/capacitor that makes up the finals tuning has an "unloaded" Q
that is high, which means that the coil/capacitor in and of itself
does not contribute to the loss, but as a system, Q is relatively low
(by at least a power of 10 if not 20). It would be impossible to
measure the unloaded Q of an antenna because it is necessarily MUCH
larger than a conventional coil/capacitor lumped circuit. Being large
means that it encompasses that loss of radiation resistance.

There is, of course, a hazy area where antennas get very small, or
finals get very big. The 1M loops sold as "magnetic" loops certainly
approach that, and yet the ratio of radiation resistance and loss
resistance in the low bands is clearly a loser proportion for this
breed. If you have no choice, even 5% efficiency is gold bond stuff.
However, simply because it has high Q does not elevate its poor
performance.

This returns us to that crude triad of pick any two characteristics
and leave the third for the vultures.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


 
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
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Mobile Ant L match ? Henry Kolesnik Antenna 14 January 20th 04 04:08 AM
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? lbbs Antenna 16 December 13th 03 03:01 PM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017