Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm
coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Now there's no difficulty in feeding all that power into that 1/4 inch because it is so short compared to a wavelength that there is a uniformity of voltage and current along it, and it will be essentially the same as that existing in the last gnat's cock of the coax. Attach a hi-impedance scope probe to the end of that 1/4 inch and all the power being delivered through the coax will be detectable right at the tip of that 1/4 inch. Now, will that 1/4 inch antenna radiate all the power that is being successfully fed to it at 3.6MHz, or will the configuration behave merely as an open-circuit with all the power being reflected back down the coax? A number of contributors to this NG claim that the 1/4 inch stub antenna will radiate the full 100W at 3.6MHz, but I fear that they are sadly mistaken and that their associated infantile outbursts are because they are in denial either about their error, or cannot face up to a challenge to their seemingly-religious faith as to what is happening. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. A piece of coax is not an antenna. Now there's no difficulty in feeding all that power into that 1/4 inch because it is so short compared to a wavelength that there is a uniformity of voltage and current along it, and it will be essentially the same as that existing in the last gnat's cock of the coax. Wrong and shows an utter lack of understanding how antennas work. Attach a hi-impedance scope probe to the end of that 1/4 inch and all the power being delivered through the coax will be detectable right at the tip of that 1/4 inch. But not the current in that 1/4 inch piece, which is the important part. Now, will that 1/4 inch antenna radiate all the power that is being successfully fed to it at 3.6MHz, or will the configuration behave merely as an open-circuit with all the power being reflected back down the coax? The amount of power the will be successfully fed to it at 3.6MHz will be miniscule. A number of contributors to this NG claim that the 1/4 inch stub antenna will radiate the full 100W at 3.6MHz, If and only if the impedance of the 1/4 inch stub is matched to 50 Ohms without losses in the matching device and the resistance of the 1/4 inch stub is much less than the resistive input impedance of the 1/4 inch stub. This is something you just can not seem to understand no matter how many times it is repeated or shown to be true. but I fear that they are sadly mistaken and that their associated infantile outbursts are because they are in denial either about their error, or cannot face up to a challenge to their seemingly-religious faith as to what is happening. I fear you are incapable of understanding how any antenna works. -- Jim Pennino |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Now there's no difficulty in feeding all that power into that 1/4 inch because it is so short compared to a wavelength that there is a uniformity of voltage and current along it, and it will be essentially the same as that existing in the last gnat's cock of the coax. Attach a hi-impedance scope probe to the end of that 1/4 inch and all the power being delivered through the coax will be detectable right at the tip of that 1/4 inch. Now, will that 1/4 inch antenna radiate all the power that is being successfully fed to it at 3.6MHz, or will the configuration behave merely as an open-circuit with all the power being reflected back down the coax? A number of contributors to this NG claim that the 1/4 inch stub antenna will radiate the full 100W at 3.6MHz, but I fear that they are sadly mistaken and that their associated infantile outbursts are because they are in denial either about their error, or cannot face up to a challenge to their seemingly-religious faith as to what is happening. The resistive impedance of your 1/4 inch stub will be a small fraction of an Ohm. Let us assume 0.001 Ohms though it would likely be much smaller than that and I do not want to spend the effort on getting the actual value for your nonsense. Since P=I^2R and power in your scenario is 100 W and the total resistance is 50.001 Ohms, the current is 1.414 A. Again since P=I^R and the antenna has a resistive impedance of 0.001 Ohms, the power in the antenna is 0.002 W. Do look up impedance matching and why it is used. -- Jim Pennino |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gareth" wrote in message
... Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Actually, here is a better example, because it represents the situation found in many shacks. Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding, and thereby forming a short antenna. The short antenna, only 1/4 inch long is immediately terminated by a 50 ohm resistance. 1. How much of the power from the coax is fed into that short antenna despite the claimed (by others) impedance mismatch? 2. How much of that power is radiated by that short antenna? 3. If all the power that is fed to the short antenna is radiated, does the 50 ohm resistor dissipate any of it? 4. How much of the power is dissipated in the 50 ohm resistor? 5. How much of the power is reflected back down the coax because of the impedance mismatch of that (very) short antenna? |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10/27/2014 7:38 PM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Actually, here is a better example, because it represents the situation found in many shacks. Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding, and thereby forming a short antenna. The short antenna, only 1/4 inch long is immediately terminated by a 50 ohm resistance. 1. How much of the power from the coax is fed into that short antenna despite the claimed (by others) impedance mismatch? 2. How much of that power is radiated by that short antenna? 3. If all the power that is fed to the short antenna is radiated, does the 50 ohm resistor dissipate any of it? 4. How much of the power is dissipated in the 50 ohm resistor? 5. How much of the power is reflected back down the coax because of the impedance mismatch of that (very) short antenna? You are right. Very little of the power reaching the end of that cable will be radiated. Most will be reflected back down the cable toward the source. When you add a 50 ohm termination you will still have very little radiated. Nearly all of the power will be dissipated in the resistor. I think you have a very clear picture of what is happening. -- Rick |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Actually, here is a better example, because it represents the situation found in many shacks. Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding, and thereby forming a short antenna. The short antenna, only 1/4 inch long is immediately terminated by a 50 ohm resistance. 1. How much of the power from the coax is fed into that short antenna despite the claimed (by others) impedance mismatch? Assuming an antenna impedance of 0.001 Ohms, about 0.002 W. 2. How much of that power is radiated by that short antenna? About 0.002 W. 3. If all the power that is fed to the short antenna is radiated, does the 50 ohm resistor dissipate any of it? Yes. 4. How much of the power is dissipated in the 50 ohm resistor? About 99.998 W. 5. How much of the power is reflected back down the coax because of the impedance mismatch of that (very) short antenna? Nil. Still no clue how antennas work, I see. -- Jim Pennino |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote:
On 10/27/2014 7:38 PM, gareth wrote: "gareth" wrote in message ... Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding. Actually, here is a better example, because it represents the situation found in many shacks. Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding, and thereby forming a short antenna. The short antenna, only 1/4 inch long is immediately terminated by a 50 ohm resistance. 1. How much of the power from the coax is fed into that short antenna despite the claimed (by others) impedance mismatch? 2. How much of that power is radiated by that short antenna? 3. If all the power that is fed to the short antenna is radiated, does the 50 ohm resistor dissipate any of it? 4. How much of the power is dissipated in the 50 ohm resistor? 5. How much of the power is reflected back down the coax because of the impedance mismatch of that (very) short antenna? You are right. Very little of the power reaching the end of that cable will be radiated. Most will be reflected back down the cable toward the source. When you add a 50 ohm termination you will still have very little radiated. Nearly all of the power will be dissipated in the resistor. I think you have a very clear picture of what is happening. Nope, it just shows he does not understand the concept of impedance matching. -- Jim Pennino |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... He doesn't want to understand, he wants to stir up a long thread he can pepper with abuse Untrue. and claim he 'won', Untrue. Once again you project your own failings. Also untrue, because I am always willing to accept that I may be wrong, unlike yourself who regularly changes the subject in order to avoid being challenged; a strategy for which you are notorious. while others who disagreed with him didn't understand the subject. Untrue, although they might have misconstrued and shot off at a tangent, as you are wont to do. As strange as it sounds, this seems to give him some kind of 'buzz', perhaps his self esteem is so low that he is driven to such measures. Untrue. Perhaps he is just a nasty individual. Physician, heal thyself. Once again, Brian, you have jumped into a technical thread only to originate abusive remarks but without making any technical contribution. Why do you behave like that? |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "gareth" wrote in message ... Actually, here is a better example, because it represents the situation found in many shacks. Consider 100W at 3.6MHz propagating along some 50 ohm coax, which terminates suddenly but with 1/4 inch of the central conductor protruding, and thereby forming a short antenna. The short antenna, only 1/4 inch long is immediately terminated by a 50 ohm resistance. 1. How much of the power from the coax is fed into that short antenna despite the claimed (by others) impedance mismatch? 2. How much of that power is radiated by that short antenna? 3. If all the power that is fed to the short antenna is radiated, does the 50 ohm resistor dissipate any of it? 4. How much of the power is dissipated in the 50 ohm resistor? 5. How much of the power is reflected back down the coax because of the impedance mismatch of that (very) short antenna? 6. Of those who claim that a short antenna will radiate all the power fed to it, how many will realise that for any power to be dissipated in the resistor, it must have been successfully fed to that short antenna in the first place? 7. Of those who suggest that impednace matching is a serious consideration, how many will realise that at 3.6MHz, that the 1/4" short antenna is the standard practice to connect the end of the coax to the dummy load with a bit of wire? |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeff wrote in :
However, if you do succeed in feeing it, either practically or mathematically by simulation, then all of the power that ends up in the short antenna will be radiated apart from that lost as heat in the resistance of the element. My imagination by now is going hyperbolic, I'm beginning to have visions of this Mythical Tiny Beast of an antenna, as a short fat gold cross, perhaps operating on the Hail Mary passband. Surreal, no? Miraculous certainly, if it could exist. But I suspect even the resistance of pure gold is too low for a hotline to God. ![]() |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed. | Antenna | |||
Short Antennae | Antenna | |||
Coaxial Collinear... To short or not to short | Antenna | |||
Radiate Power Question ? | Antenna | |||
How much does a counterpoise radiate? | Antenna |