On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:30:07 GMT, ml wrote:
what would happen if i build say i'd have to stay physically small , so say a 1/4wave verticle on 10m and then made that antenna supercondutive? Hi OM, As far as performance? Absolutely no difference to it even if it were elevated 1000°F above that to compare. - Well maybe someone with enough sophisticated equipment might notice a dB difference - then they would whack the side of the gear to clear that up - nope, no difference.... You need to come to terms with just how imperceptible 1 dB is (zilch, in technical terms), and how much power it takes (about 12%, just more $ to burn) to make that imperceptible difference. The dollar has lost 30% of its value in the world market in the last few years - have you noticed? This may not be one way to appreciate 1dB, but it does reveal how relative changes go unfelt. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
superconducting antenna?
i just wonder does anyone know of any links to articles on a small superconducting antenna say for hf frequencies what would happen if i build say i'd have to stay physically small , so say a 1/4wave verticle on 10m and then made that antenna supercondutive? the antenna would technically have like no resistance that i know then i get fuzzy wonder what happens both technically speaking and if anyone tried it, was it a 'great' antenna rx or tx wise?? any pro's con's of such a design aside from the obv cost and impracticaliaty of pumping Lhydr/liq helium or nitrog into it etc |
A number of superconducting antennas have been built and the results
published. The ones I recall seeing were using the newer high temperature superconductors, although it can be done with conventional superconductors also. It doesn't seem to be generally known that superconductors have zero resistance only at DC. Their resistance is finite at any frequency above zero. It increases with frequency, and it also increases as the temperature rises toward the critical temperature (at which the material ceases becoming a superconductor). The resistivity of copper drops pretty dramatically at cryogenic temperatures, so copper becomes pretty hard to beat at RF, particularly if the temperature is getting anywhere near the critical temperature of the competing superconducting material. The potential advantage to be gained from a lossless antenna is that a very small, efficient antenna can be made. The problems a 1. You have a really tough matching problem, and will have severe loss in your matching network unless it's also superconducting. 2. If you do keep the antenna and matching network losses to a small value, a very small antenna will be very narrow banded. 3. You'll have to keep the temperature far below the critical temperature if you want to do much better than copper. This probably means cooling to a few degrees Kelvin, which is expensive and not compatible with putting antenna high and in the clear, let alone making one that can be rotated, for example. And the advantage of a small antenna is likely to be negated by the size of the cooling equipment. 4. Because the antenna will have finite resistance and presumably a small size, application of transmitter power will cause heating. This heat has to be removed by the refrigeration equipment to avoid raising the temperature too much. A google search on "superconducting antenna" will bring you a lot of papers, but probably not much in the way of commercial products. While interesting in the laboratory, the above problems limit the practicality of the idea. Roy Lewallen, W7EL ml wrote: i just wonder does anyone know of any links to articles on a small superconducting antenna say for hf frequencies what would happen if i build say i'd have to stay physically small , so say a 1/4wave verticle on 10m and then made that antenna supercondutive? the antenna would technically have like no resistance that i know then i get fuzzy wonder what happens both technically speaking and if anyone tried it, was it a 'great' antenna rx or tx wise?? any pro's con's of such a design aside from the obv cost and impracticaliaty of pumping Lhydr/liq helium or nitrog into it etc |
Of course Mr. Clark, as usual, is "right on the money" in saying that 1db is
nothing. To get a 1 unit s-meter difference on the average receiver, it actually takes 6 decibels more signal, or 4 times the power, from the transmitter, to produce that signal increase. Double the transmitter power (3 db) , and you get a half an s-unit increase. In many cases, it is more advantageous to raise the antenna 10 feet or more, than it is to increase transmitter power, and it will often result in much more signal in the receiver, since it gets the transmitter antenna "up in the clear", where losses to the ground and surrounding obstructions drop off.. "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:30:07 GMT, ml wrote: what would happen if i build say i'd have to stay physically small , so say a 1/4wave verticle on 10m and then made that antenna supercondutive? Hi OM, As far as performance? Absolutely no difference to it even if it were elevated 1000°F above that to compare. - Well maybe someone with enough sophisticated equipment might notice a dB difference - then they would whack the side of the gear to clear that up - nope, no difference.... You need to come to terms with just how imperceptible 1 dB is (zilch, in technical terms), and how much power it takes (about 12%, just more $ to burn) to make that imperceptible difference. The dollar has lost 30% of its value in the world market in the last few years - have you noticed? This may not be one way to appreciate 1dB, but it does reveal how relative changes go unfelt. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Zombie Wolf wrote:
Of course Mr. Clark, as usual, is "right on the money" in saying that 1db is nothing. Reminds me of an article in QST in the '50's titled "One dB Doesn't Matter" or something like that. This ham had one dB loss due to an old final tube, one dB loss due to a dirty tank coil, one dB loss in the low- pass filter, one dB loss in a bad solder joint, one dB loss in the tuner, one dB loss in the transmission line, and one dB loss in the antenna. He wondered why he wasn't getting out very well. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Reminds me of an article in QST in the '50's titled
"One dB Doesn't Matter" or something like that. This ham had one dB loss due to an old final tube, one dB loss due to a dirty tank coil, one dB loss in the low- pass filter, one dB loss in a bad solder joint, one dB loss in the tuner, one dB loss in the transmission line, and one dB loss in the antenna. He wondered why he wasn't getting out very well. :-) -- ============================= No he didn't. 7dB, about one S-unit, is not enough to come to anybody's attention. It's less than the difference between a G5RV plus coax, specially a 1/2-size G5RV, and an ordinary dipole fed with open-wire line which most people never seem to notice. ---- Reg, G4FGQ |
I would argue over the simplification that below 1 db is "nothing."
If one cleans up his system then it is possible that those items that lose less than a db could add up to something "meaningfull". But DXrs say a little db is a lot and usually they are not casual operators. A single increase in gain of a db of an antenna can infact supply more gain at a lower TOA where it enables the operator to make a contact where others fail! On my antenna I am able to drive down the TOA by more than 3 degrees where for comparison purposes it may only have the gain oif a normal four element yagi that has a TOA of 14 degrees. So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can achieve what others can't. Regards Art "Zombie Wolf" wrote in message ... Of course Mr. Clark, as usual, is "right on the money" in saying that 1db is nothing. To get a 1 unit s-meter difference on the average receiver, it actually takes 6 decibels more signal, or 4 times the power, from the transmitter, to produce that signal increase. Double the transmitter power (3 db) , and you get a half an s-unit increase. In many cases, it is more advantageous to raise the antenna 10 feet or more, than it is to increase transmitter power, and it will often result in much more signal in the receiver, since it gets the transmitter antenna "up in the clear", where losses to the ground and surrounding obstructions drop off.. "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:30:07 GMT, ml wrote: what would happen if i build say i'd have to stay physically small , so say a 1/4wave verticle on 10m and then made that antenna supercondutive? Hi OM, As far as performance? Absolutely no difference to it even if it were elevated 1000°F above that to compare. - Well maybe someone with enough sophisticated equipment might notice a dB difference - then they would whack the side of the gear to clear that up - nope, no difference.... You need to come to terms with just how imperceptible 1 dB is (zilch, in technical terms), and how much power it takes (about 12%, just more $ to burn) to make that imperceptible difference. The dollar has lost 30% of its value in the world market in the last few years - have you noticed? This may not be one way to appreciate 1dB, but it does reveal how relative changes go unfelt. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Zombie Wolf wrote:
. . .To get a 1 unit s-meter difference on the average receiver, it actually takes 6 decibels more signal, or 4 times the power, from the transmitter, to produce that signal increase. . . I'd be very interested in seeing the basis for that statement. Or are you simply and mistakenly assuming that the ficticious 6 dB "S-Unit" so fondly and inexplicably used by amateurs actually represents a division on a typical receiver S meter? Have you checked your receiver's S meter? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Reg Edwards wrote:
No he didn't. 7dB, about one S-unit, is not enough to come to anybody's attention. . . Yet look at all the people who go to all the trouble of putting up a 3 element beam, then think that the 7 dB gain over a dipole actually makes their signal louder. Or get a 500 watt amplifier for their 100 watt rig. Silly fools! Old wives! Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:52 GMT, "
wrote: So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can achieve what others can't. Hi all, This "over the top" and other straining to get a "louder" signal begs a real number - like 1dB. Such testimonials (negative or positive) are emotional comparisons. This "over the top" expression speaks for itself. If a 12% drop is outrageously "over the top," then there would be runs on the bank for the 30% fall of the dollar's value in the world market. Back when we had double-digit inflation (hmmmm, 12% is double-digit) the party now in charge went ballistic about the state of the economy. Now that we have outsourced inflation - 30% is cool. Merely a matter of who's ox is being gored. Well, so much for fun with numbers; let's look at "louder" signals. What does it mean to be "louder" with a modern (post Depression era) receiver? Is 1 dB perceived as being "louder?" Well, by definition: just barely (IFF you turn up the volume control). Why do I parenthetically add this constraint of a necessary active participation of turning up the volume control? Because in a modern receiver, the circuitry deliberately compensates for that 1dB boost by depressing the gain by the same amount. Net result? Voila! 0dB by perception and design. Well, by aural perception that is. So much for "louder." You "might" see (another perception) the S-Meter shift by something less than one needle's width if that makes you feel that something has been accomplished - in this case they could as easily calibrate the meter in ego-Satisfaction units. Then again, maybe you would have missed 1dB entirely (should we insist on a negative multipliers for that ego reading?). The correct appeal is found in S+N/N where the improvement adds clarity - merely bombasting about "loudness" is provincial. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com