Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#11




I am much more interested in getting the
generated RF into the Ã†ther.  Cec, Good, now we're back on track. But what's the 377 ohms of nothingness to do with a random length of wire which has any impedance you fancy just by connecting to it. Even without making a connection and just using your imagination. Could the person who confidently raised this subject from the dead please give us some clues about calculating the turns ratio. I don't have ready access to the works of Maxwell and there's no mention of it in my 1992 edition of the ARRL Handbook. And I think my smiley is better than yours! 
#12




Tricky Dick Sez 
What you describe is the feedpoint Z not the antenna Z which to all intents and purposes is not far from the original, singlewire dipole. Tricky, After all these years you're catching on. What you really meant to say was that the feedpoint impedance is not the same thing as the radiation resistance. 'Antenna' impedance' in the present context is not a phrase known to radio engineering. Please define.  Reg 
#13




In article ,
Reg Edwards wrote: Cec, Good, now we're back on track. But what's the 377 ohms of nothingness to do with a random length of wire which has any impedance you fancy just by connecting to it. Even without making a connection and just using your imagination. Could the person who confidently raised this subject from the dead please give us some clues about calculating the turns ratio. I think you have to measure the diameter of free space first, before you can calculate the turns ratio. Do write, when you get to the far side, and let us know how the weather is, OK? ;)  Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jadewarrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! 
#14




Only at some distance from the antenna. You can create local E/H ratios
of nearly any value (magnitude and phase). Roy Lewallen, W7EL W5DXP wrote: The ratio of the radiated Efield to Hfield has no other choice. If you stuff EM radiation into free space, the ratio of Efield to Hfield is 376.7 ohms. Zero energy is lost from the EM spectrum when an electron throws off a photon (until that photon is annihilated). 
#15




Roy Lewallen wrote:
Only at some distance from the antenna. You can create local E/H ratios of nearly any value (magnitude and phase). Roy Lewallen, W7EL W5DXP wrote: The ratio of the radiated Efield to Hfield has no other choice. If you stuff EM radiation into free space, the ratio of Efield to Hfield is 376.7 ohms. Zero energy is lost from the EM spectrum when an electron throws off a photon (until that photon is annihilated). The near field has a reactive component to the impedance. But is it true that the real part of that complex impedance must be 376.7 ohms resistive? Bill W0IYH 
#16




William E. Sabin wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: Only at some distance from the antenna. You can create local E/H ratios of nearly any value (magnitude and phase). Roy Lewallen, W7EL W5DXP wrote: The ratio of the radiated Efield to Hfield has no other choice. If you stuff EM radiation into free space, the ratio of Efield to Hfield is 376.7 ohms. Zero energy is lost from the EM spectrum when an electron throws off a photon (until that photon is annihilated). The near field has a reactive component to the impedance. But is it true that the real part of that complex impedance must be 376.7 ohms resistive? Bill W0IYH Not at all. For example, the magnitude of of the wave impedance E/H is much lower than 377 ohms very close to a small loop, and much higher than 377 ohms very close to a short dipole. Interestingly, as you move away from a small loop, the magnitude of E/H actually increases to a value greater than 377 ohms, then slowly approaches 377 ohms from the high side as you move even farther away. The opposite happens for a short dipole  the E/H ratio drops below 377 ohms some distance away (a fraction of a wavelength), then increases to 377 ohms as you go farther yet. Roy Lewallen, W7EL 
#17




On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 08:54:56 0500, "William E. Sabin"
[email protected] wrote: It seems that very close to (but slightly removed from) the antenna the real part of the resistive space impedance is nearly the same as the real part of the driving point impedance of the antenna. This real part is then transformed to 377 ohms (real) within the near field, suggesting that the open space adjacent to the antenna performs an impedance transformation. The nearfield reactive fields perform this function in some manner. The figures at: http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...pole/index.htm illustrate just how the dipole's nearfield reactance maps out (without respect for phase, and expressed in SWR relative to free space Z). Note that employing the term transform and antenna within the same context is not de rigueur. ;) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC 
#18




Richard Clark wrote:
Note that employing the term transform and antenna within the same context is not de rigueur. It is 100 percent correct and appropriate. Bill W0IYH 
#19




In the fourth paragraph, you say that "real power is in the real part of
the impedance", and in the last, that it's "found by integrating the Poynting vector slightly outside the surface of the antenna". The impedance is E/H, the Poynting vector E X H. Clearly these aren't equivalent. The radiated power is, as you say, the integral of the Poynting vector over a surface. (And the average, or "real", radiated power is the average of this.) The integral doesn't need to be taken slightly outside the surface of the antenna, but can be any closed surface enclosing the antenna. There's no necessity for E/H, or the real part of E/H, to be constant in order to have the integral of E X H be constant. The driving point impedance of the antenna depends on where you drive it, and it bears no relationship I know of to the wave impedance (which is, I assume, what you mean by "resistive space impedance") close to the antenna. If you find any published, modeled, measured, or calculated support for that contention, I'd be very interested in it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL William E. Sabin wrote: There seems to more explanation needed. If a lossless dipole is loaded with 100 W of *real* power, that is the real power in the far field, and it is also the real power very close to the antenna, regardless of the type of antenna. The value of real power is the same everywhere. Since real power is in the real part of the impedance, then how does the value of real impedance (not the magnitude of impedance) vary with distance from the antenna? It seems that very close to (but slightly removed from) the antenna the real part of the resistive space impedance is nearly the same as the real part of the driving point impedance of the antenna. This real part is then transformed to 377 ohms (real) within the near field, suggesting that the open space adjacent to the antenna performs an impedance transformation. The nearfield reactive fields perform this function in some manner. The real power radiated is found by integrating the Poynting vector slightly outside the surface of the antenna, and is equal to the real power into the (lossless) antenna. This value is constant everywhere beyond the antenna. Bill W0IYH 
#20




actually i would expect that a change in E/H would change the driving point
impedance and also the performance of the antenna. some possible examples that show this effect are the changes in element sizes when modeling an antenna printed on a dielectric circuit board material or sandwiched in a dielectric media. the change in wire length due to insulation is another example, the dielectric properties of the insulation change the E/H ratio near the wire. some examples may be found in many electromagnetics texts, look at things like dielectric waveguides, or dielectrics in waveguides, wires in dielectric media. even the detailed calculation of fields within a dielectric filled coaxial cable should show this effect, change the dielectric and you change the characteristic impedance... a measurable effect from changing the 'space impedence' between the wires. "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... In the fourth paragraph, you say that "real power is in the real part of the impedance", and in the last, that it's "found by integrating the Poynting vector slightly outside the surface of the antenna". The impedance is E/H, the Poynting vector E X H. Clearly these aren't equivalent. The radiated power is, as you say, the integral of the Poynting vector over a surface. (And the average, or "real", radiated power is the average of this.) The integral doesn't need to be taken slightly outside the surface of the antenna, but can be any closed surface enclosing the antenna. There's no necessity for E/H, or the real part of E/H, to be constant in order to have the integral of E X H be constant. The driving point impedance of the antenna depends on where you drive it, and it bears no relationship I know of to the wave impedance (which is, I assume, what you mean by "resistive space impedance") close to the antenna. If you find any published, modeled, measured, or calculated support for that contention, I'd be very interested in it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL William E. Sabin wrote: There seems to more explanation needed. If a lossless dipole is loaded with 100 W of *real* power, that is the real power in the far field, and it is also the real power very close to the antenna, regardless of the type of antenna. The value of real power is the same everywhere. Since real power is in the real part of the impedance, then how does the value of real impedance (not the magnitude of impedance) vary with distance from the antenna? It seems that very close to (but slightly removed from) the antenna the real part of the resistive space impedance is nearly the same as the real part of the driving point impedance of the antenna. This real part is then transformed to 377 ohms (real) within the near field, suggesting that the open space adjacent to the antenna performs an impedance transformation. The nearfield reactive fields perform this function in some manner. The real power radiated is found by integrating the Poynting vector slightly outside the surface of the antenna, and is equal to the real power into the (lossless) antenna. This value is constant everywhere beyond the antenna. Bill W0IYH 
Reply 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
50 Ohms "Real Resistive" impedance a Misnomer?  Antenna 