Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Irv Finkleman" wrote in message ... Thanks Sal -- I'm pretty sure I spotted a magloop on the Coast Guard ship, but the photo is a little too small and when enlarged the antenna blurs. I have now decided from all my 'research' into the matter that what is referred to as the 'gamma match' on these loops is more like a distorted feed loop, and whatever the case, the persons who built the magloops I looked at found that the feed when set, served the purpose across all bands. That's good enough for me, and when I eventually build a magloop (I've got most of the stuff already), I'll find out more about the matching situation. Next time I visit the coast (I go to Victoria B.C. periodically to visit one of my daughters), I'll to a tour of the Navy dockyard and see if I see anything new in antennas since my days on the ships there. Irv VE6BP If it is not a magloop, it could be a DDRR (directional discontinuity ring radiator). |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/17/2013 09:59 PM, Sal wrote:
"Irv Finkleman" wrote in message ... I am planning to build a magnetic loop antenna and feed it by means of a gamma match. I understand that a gamma match will work over a wide range of frequencies. I hope to work a number of bands using the same loop. Hello, and I would think by "magnetic" loop antenna there must also be a "non-magnetic" loop antenna. Actually I'm just ranting a little bit - we only have loop antennas (which can also be shielded or unshielded). If we're talking about the use of such an antenna in the far field then, like any other receiving/transmitting antenna it captures/radiates an E-M field. The fact that the plane of the loop antenna aligns with the magnetic component of the E-M field is due to the geometry of the antenna. Adding the "loop" qualifier to the name is unnecessary and invites confusion to those unfamiliar with basic electromagnetic theory IMHO. Electric and magnetic fields in and of themselves don't radiate; only E-M fields can do that. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- J. B. Wood e-mail: |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/21/2013 06:45 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:
Adding the "loop" qualifier to the name is unnecessary and invites confusion to those unfamiliar with basic electromagnetic theory IMHO. Electric and magnetic fields in and of themselves don't radiate; only E-M fields can do that. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, Hello, and please substitute "magnetic" for "loop" in the above. (Got caught in my own rant.) Sincerely, -- J. B. Wood e-mail: |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, October 21, 2013 5:45:48 AM UTC-5, J.B. Wood wrote:
I would think by "magnetic" loop antenna there must also be a "non-magnetic" loop antenna. The opposite would actually be an "electric loop antenna". According to Kraus, there exists a "small electric antenna", i.e. a physically short dipole.. The physically short loop and the physically short dipole are both standing wave antennas. The short loop operates close to a standing wave current maximum point, i.e. near a *magnetic loop* (electric node). The short dipole operates close to a standing wave voltage maximum point, i.e. near an *electric loop* (magnetic node). Full-size antennas have both magnetic loops/nodes and electric loops/nodes. Here's a quote from Kraus: "The small horizontal loop antenna ... may be regarded as the *magnetic* counterpart of the short vertical (*electric*) dipole ... Booth loop and dipole have identical field patterns but *with the E and H interchanged*." Note that the H field is directly proportional to the M field and that there are two distinctly different uses for the word "loop" above. One is physical, the other is electromagnetic. A "magnetic loop antenna" could just as easily be described as an "electric node antenna" and a small dipole could be called an "electric loop antenna" or a "magnetic node antenna". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/21/2013 08:55 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 5:45:48 AM UTC-5, J.B. Wood wrote: I would think by "magnetic" loop antenna there must also be a "non-magnetic" loop antenna. The opposite would actually be an "electric loop antenna". According to Kraus, there exists a "small electric antenna", i.e. a physically short dipole. The physically short loop and the physically short dipole are both standing wave antennas. The short loop operates close to a standing wave current maximum point, i.e. near a *magnetic loop* (electric node). The short dipole operates close to a standing wave voltage maximum point, i.e. near an *electric loop* (magnetic node). Full-size antennas have both magnetic loops/nodes and electric loops/nodes. Here's a quote from Kraus: "The small horizontal loop antenna ... may be regarded as the *magnetic* counterpart of the short vertical (*electric*) dipole ... Booth loop and dipole have identical field patterns but *with the E and H interchanged*." Note that the H field is directly proportional to the M field and that there are two distinctly different uses for the word "loop" above. One is physical, the other is electromagnetic. A "magnetic loop antenna" could just as easily be described as an "electric node antenna" and a small dipole could be called an "electric loop antenna" or a "magnetic node antenna". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Hello, and no issues here. My OP was addressing practical ham antenna (not usually electrically small) dimensions. I still contend though that even if one shrinks a loop antenna to something approaching a magnetic dipole, it still should be called a "loop antenna" vice "magnetic loop antenna". Or you can call it a "magnetic dipole" if the dimensions apply. None of my antenna textbooks, including Kraus, uses the term "magnetic loop antenna". Frankly, I don't know how this terminology ever got started, but it seems to be in somewhat common use in the ham radio community. Perhaps it is the confusion between operation of a coil of wire as an inductor immersed in a magnetic field vs the operation of that same coil as an antenna). Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- J. B. Wood e-mail: |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, October 21, 2013 8:57:01 AM UTC-5, J.B. Wood wrote:
Or you can call it a "magnetic dipole" if the dimensions apply. I agree it should be called a "small loop" rather than a "magnetic loop". My above quote from Kraus seems to give us permission to call it a "magnetic loop" and here's what Balanis says: "A comparison of (the small loop equations) with those of the infinitesimal magnetic dipole indicates that they have similar forms." -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Magnetic, Shmagnetic! It works! A rose by any other
name would smell as sweet! :-) de VE6BP Irv "J.B. Wood" wrote in message ... On 10/17/2013 09:59 PM, Sal wrote: "Irv Finkleman" wrote in message ... I am planning to build a magnetic loop antenna and feed it by means of a gamma match. I understand that a gamma match will work over a wide range of frequencies. I hope to work a number of bands using the same loop. Hello, and I would think by "magnetic" loop antenna there must also be a "non-magnetic" loop antenna. Actually I'm just ranting a little bit - we only have loop antennas (which can also be shielded or unshielded). If we're talking about the use of such an antenna in the far field then, like any other receiving/transmitting antenna it captures/radiates an E-M field. The fact that the plane of the loop antenna aligns with the magnetic component of the E-M field is due to the geometry of the antenna. Adding the "loop" qualifier to the name is unnecessary and invites confusion to those unfamiliar with basic electromagnetic theory IMHO. Electric and magnetic fields in and of themselves don't radiate; only E-M fields can do that. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO, -- J. B. Wood e-mail: |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/21/2013 9:45 AM, Irv Finkleman wrote:
Magnetic, Shmagnetic! It works! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet! :-) de VE6BP Irv True, if you are opposed to learning. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Always learning John, but like to throw in a little
humor now and again. de VE6BP Irv "John S" wrote in message ... On 10/21/2013 9:45 AM, Irv Finkleman wrote: Magnetic, Shmagnetic! It works! A rose by any other name would smell as sweet! :-) de VE6BP Irv True, if you are opposed to learning. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/21/2013 12:50 PM, Irv Finkleman wrote:
I am planning to build a magnetic loop antenna and feed it by means of a gamma match. I understand that a gamma match will work over a wide range of frequencies. I hope to work a number of bands using the same loop. My question is -- when I'm ready to test the antenna do I adjust the gamma match at the lowest frequency I plan to use, or the highest? I have considered other forms of coupling the rig to the transmitter but prefer to use the gamma match. Thanks in advance for any assistance or advice in this matter. Irv VE6BP Hi, Irv - See if this link is of any help to you... http://www.vk1od.net/antenna/GammaMatch/gbs.htm John KD5YI |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question about matching transformer (9:1 un-un) | Shortwave | |||
30m Shortened Dipole, matching question | Antenna | |||
please need help with delta loop antenna better matching system than gamma match | Antenna | |||
Gamma match question 6-meter yagi | Antenna | |||
Matching transformer question. | Shortwave |