![]() |
Antennas - balanced or not?
The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not
discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote:
The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. -- Rick |
Antennas - balanced or not?
John S wrote:
The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? You have to clearly define "it". The original antenna is still balanced, but the new antenna system is not because of the 3rd wire. The magnitude of the imbalance depends on the length and orientation of that third wire and can be anywhere from insignificant to major. -- Jim Pennino |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. |
Antennas - balanced or not?
|
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/5/2015 9:47 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has changed. So what is your question? -- Rick |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/5/2015 9:47 AM, John S wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has changed. In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna? So what is your question? You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it. |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote:
On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/5/2015 9:47 AM, John S wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has changed. In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna? By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in your OP. So what is your question? You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it. "Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"? You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced." A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg than the other. ;) -- Rick |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/6/2015 9:13 AM, rickman wrote:
On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote: On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/5/2015 9:47 AM, John S wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has changed. In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna? By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in your OP. How would YOU have stated it? So what is your question? You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it. "Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"? The system. You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced." A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg than the other. ;) But, there is a problem with your explanation. Inside the bubble (the generator, noted as 0) you can have whatever impedance and whatever network your heart desires. But for the two terminals exiting the generator, the current will be the same on each terminal. It must, for there are only two terminals. Whatever goes into one terminal, goes out the other. In the ASCII figure model, I did not include any external connections other than the wires. So, what would you conclude from this? |
Antennas - balanced or not?
On 8/6/2015 12:07 PM, John S wrote:
On 8/6/2015 9:13 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/6/2015 9:48 AM, John S wrote: On 8/5/2015 10:28 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/5/2015 9:47 AM, John S wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, rickman wrote: On 8/4/2015 11:39 AM, John S wrote: The balun thread has become long (138 posts). I propose that we not discuss baluns, but concentrate on antenna balance and coax attachment. Starting from the simplest of all situations, assume a dipole with an RF generator in the middle. If we can't agree that this is a balanced system, then we have nothing left to discuss. Connect an additional wire to one side of the source so that you have one wire on one side and two wires on the other side. Is it still balanced? Is *what* still balanced? The antenna hasn't changed and is still balanced. Well, the starting point is this: ----------0----------- Where the 0 is the generator. Then we attach a wire like so: ----------0.---------- | | | | | I don't understand how the antenna has not changed. The generator hasn't changed and is still balanced. I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced. But you have added a wire which will load the generator and serve as an element of the antenna changing the radiation pattern. How significantly the pattern will change depends on the orientation of the wire and what it connects to, if anything. There is also the issue of how much energy is transmitted along the wire to whatever is connected to it. Please disregard the radiation pattern in this thread. If you consider the wire to be part of the antenna, then the antenna has changed. In what way could the wire not be part of the antenna? By your construction. You said you have an antenna and a wire. If you meant for the wire to be part of the antenna you would have said that in your OP. How would YOU have stated it? I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't want to get into a pedantic thing. Let's just iron out the misunderstanding and move forward. Do you intend for the wire to be part of the antenna? Is the wire connected to ground or just hanging in space? So what is your question? You will find that in my OP. The question mark identifies it. "Is it still balanced?" I asked before, what is "it"? The system. I don't know what the definition of a balanced system is. But I would think it was pretty obvious that this is not balanced by nearly any definition. You also said, "I do not understand how a two-terminal generator can be described as either balanced or unbalanced." A two terminal generator may have series resistance, for example. That series resistance may not be evenly distributed. More resistance on one leg than the other and it is no longer balanced. If the series resistance is zero, then it would need a *lot* more of it on one leg than the other. ;) But, there is a problem with your explanation. Inside the bubble (the generator, noted as 0) you can have whatever impedance and whatever network your heart desires. But for the two terminals exiting the generator, the current will be the same on each terminal. It must, for there are only two terminals. Whatever goes into one terminal, goes out the other. In the ASCII figure model, I did not include any external connections other than the wires. So, what would you conclude from this? Does equal current imply "balanced"? What about the voltage? But then I am thinking relative to ground and your generator has no ground. Still, the voltage at the two points do not have to be equal but opposite. The point is the impact it will have on the antenna. Look at what a balun does. On both sides of the balun, the current going in and out each wire are equal, but obviously one side of the balun is considered balanced and the other not. So equal current does not imply "balanced". -- Rick |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com