(yet another) transmission line question
 

More for the fun of pondering it than for any immediate practical
reason...

If I make a balanced two-wire transmission line from round wires, and
I'm constrained to have the wire center-to-center spacing some
particular value (say one inch, or five centimeters, or whatever), what
wire diameter should I use to get the lowest matched-line loss? What
impedance line does that give (assuming air dielectric)?

Clearly for a given wire diameter, the wider the spacing the lower the
loss up to the point where radiation plus dielectric loss becomes
significant, but I can imagine situations where you want to limit the
wire spacing and get low loss.

Cheers,
Tom

Unless I goofed up the math (a distinct possibility), the answer is that
you want a Z0 of about 144 ohms, which is a spacing/diameter ratio of
about 1.81.

This was pretty easy to solve via differentiation using the
approximation Z0 ~ 120 * ln(2S/d) where S = the center-to-center wire
spacing and d is the wire diameter. The answer I got was 120 ohms, or d
= 2S/e, or S/d ~ 1.36. Unfortunately, this spacing is too close for the
approximation to be accurate, so the answer wasn't good. When I used the
full inverse hyperbolic cosine formula for Z0 and took the necessary
derivative, I found the resulting equation too messy to solve in closed
form. So I went brute force and used a simple program to iterate and
spot the maximum. It looks to me like you need to maximize d * Z0 in
order to minimize the loss (see below).

Don't trust my answer without some checking -- I did it pretty quickly
so there's lots of room for error.

It's good to have an opportunity to dust off the neurons once in a
while. Thanks.

------

Loss per unit length = attenuation constant alpha = 1/2 * (R/R0 + G/G0)
nepers/m. With air dielectric, G ~ 0, so alpha = R/(2*R0), where R = AC
resistance per meter (both wires) and R0 = (assumed purely real) Z0.
Assuming skin effect is fully developed, R ~ k / d where d = wire
diameter and k depends on frequency, resistivity, and permeability of
the wire but not on d, S, or Z0. So alpha = k / (2 * d * R0). This shows
that minimizing alpha (loss) requires maximizing d * R0, which appears
to occur when R0 ~ 144 ohms (S/d ~ 1.81).

-----

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

K7ITM wrote:
More for the fun of pondering it than for any immediate practical
reason...

If I make a balanced two-wire transmission line from round wires, and
I'm constrained to have the wire center-to-center spacing some
particular value (say one inch, or five centimeters, or whatever), what
wire diameter should I use to get the lowest matched-line loss? What
impedance line does that give (assuming air dielectric)?

Clearly for a given wire diameter, the wider the spacing the lower the
loss up to the point where radiation plus dielectric loss becomes
significant, but I can imagine situations where you want to limit the
wire spacing and get low loss.

Cheers,
Tom

As he says, Roy's resulta are very approximate. That's mainly because
he neglected proximity effect between the wires.

A better approximation is obtained by incorporating an approximate
expression for proximity effect. However, this makes differentiation
of the loss formula with respect to wire diameter ridiculously
tedious. So I found minimum loss by plotting a graph with a pocket
calculator and searching for it.

At HF when skin effect is fully effective, and neglecting dielectric
loss in comparison with conductor loss -

For a fixed wire spacing, as wire diameter increases, the wires get
closer together and proximity loss eventually increases faster than
ordinary loss decreases due to the increase in diameter.

Thus minimum loss occurs at a smaller diameter and a greater
Spacing/Diameter ratio. The Ro at which minimum loss occurs is
independent of both frequency and wire conductivity. Results are -

Ro = 177 ohms. Spacing between wire centres is 2.29 times wire
diameter.

Which demonstrates that mathematics is vastly superior and takes
priority over practical experiments and making measurements.

From an engineering point of view, K7ITM asked the wrong question. He
should have asked, for a given wire spacing, what wire diameter
minimises the cost of the copper. Or something like that.

Many years back a similar sort of calculation was done for coax. Coax
does not suffer from proximity effect. It's easier to work out. The
answer was 75 ohms. That's how 75 ohms became the standard
comunications Ro. There are many millions of miles of the stuff. The
Chinese are now making even more of it.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:
Many years back a similar sort of calculation was done for coax. Coax
does not suffer from proximity effect. It's easier to work out. The
answer was 75 ohms. That's how 75 ohms became the standard
comunications Ro.

I vaguely remember something about efficiency Vs power
handling capability being the difference in the 75 ohm
standard and the 50 ohm standard. Is that right?
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:

Many years back a similar sort of calculation was done for coax. Coax
does not suffer from proximity effect. It's easier to work out. The
answer was 75 ohms. That's how 75 ohms became the standard
comunications Ro.


I vaguely remember something about efficiency Vs power
handling capability being the difference in the 75 ohm
standard and the 50 ohm standard. Is that right?
--
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! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


Page 5-15 of The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual says:

"Consider that both power handling capability and cable losses vary with Zo.
It has been shown that cable losses are minimum at a characteristic
impedance on the order of 75 [Ohms], while power handling capability is
maximum at a Zo of about 30 [Ohms]."

(The book used the Greek symbol rather than [Ohms])

The quoted passage is in a chapter by Dr. Paul Shuch, N6TX, Professor of
Electronics, Pennsylvania College of Technology. At the end of the quote, is
an indication to see footnote 13 which is:

"Moreno, Theodore, Microwave Transmission Design Data, Dover Publications,
1948."

73,
John

Cecil Moore, W5DXP wrote:
"I vaguely remember something about efficiency versus power handling
capability being the difference in the 75 ohm standard and the 50 ohm
standard."

That seens exactly right. It`s the reason you would use 75-ohm Zo cable
for TV distribution at low-power where you want to minimize loss but
there is no danger of too much voltage flashing over the cable.

Terman in his 1955 edition on page 106 says:
"---in an air-insulated coaxial line of given outer radius b, Q will be
maximum when the inner conductor has a size such thet b/a = 3.6.
(b=inner radius of outer conductor in concentric line, and a=outer
radius of inner conductor in concentric line) corresponding to Zo = 77
ohms. These are also the proportions for minimum power loss----."
However the maximum power that can be transmitted without exceeding a
given voltage gradient occurs when b/a 1.65, giving Zo = 30 ohms."

So for minimum loss you would want Zo of about 75 ohms and for maximum
power capability you would want 30 ohms. I suspect Zo=50 ohms is a
compromise between power handling capability and reasonable loss.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

You're correct, I neglected proximity effect. And the wires are close
enough that it's a factor. What is the approximate expression you used?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:
As he says, Roy's resulta are very approximate. That's mainly because
he neglected proximity effect between the wires.

A better approximation is obtained by incorporating an approximate
expression for proximity effect. However, this makes differentiation
of the loss formula with respect to wire diameter ridiculously
tedious. So I found minimum loss by plotting a graph with a pocket
calculator and searching for it.
. . .

"John - KD5YI" wrote
Cecil Moore wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote:

Many years back a similar sort of calculation was done for coax.
Coax
does not suffer from proximity effect. It's easier to work out.
The
answer was 75 ohms. That's how 75 ohms became the standard
comunications Ro.


I vaguely remember something about efficiency Vs power
handling capability being the difference in the 75 ohm
standard and the 50 ohm standard. Is that right?
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----


Page 5-15 of The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual says:

"Consider that both power handling capability and cable losses vary
with Zo.
It has been shown that cable losses are minimum at a characteristic
impedance on the order of 75 [Ohms], while power handling capability
is
maximum at a Zo of about 30 [Ohms]."

(The book used the Greek symbol rather than [Ohms])

The quoted passage is in a chapter by Dr. Paul Shuch, N6TX,
Professor of
Electronics, Pennsylvania College of Technology. At the end of the
quote, is
an indication to see footnote 13 which is:

"Moreno, Theodore, Microwave Transmission Design Data, Dover
Publications,
1948."

73,
John
============================================

It is unreliable to use ARRL and similar publications as Bibles. They
are written by amateurs for amateurs and tell only a sufficient
fraction of the whole story. Phrases such as "It has been shown that
..... " arise. They also refer to UHF/Microwave when LF and HF are of
interest. At microwave frequencies the dielectric loss cannot be
considered negligible.


For minimum attenuation, air-spaced coax Zo = 75 ohms and D/d = 3.6
For solid polyethylene Zo is smaller.


Confusion about the value of Zo which maximises power handling
capabilty arises because coax cables have different shapes and
materials to support the inner conductor. Even though the dielectric
may be considered lossless its presence affects matched line loss.


If my memory serves me correct, for maximum power handling I think 50
ohms refers to air-spaced coax and 30 ohms or thereabouts refers to
solid polyethylene dielectric. Or it may be the other way about. It
will be different again for a different dielectric permittivity.


For a coax line used as a tuned circuit, eg., when short-circuited,
maximum impedance at resonance occurs when Zo = 132 ohms and D/d ratio
= 9.1


And just to add a little more to the confusion, whether the outer
conductor is solid or braided also makes a small difference.
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Actually, the problem as I posed it is from an engineering point of
view, assuming that a particular constraint dominated the
problem...well, actually I had in mind stating it as wires that would
fit inside some diameter, but that complicated it more than I wanted as
an exercise for this group. Engineers should first ask what the goals
and constraints are, and the space the wires fit into may be one such
constraint. I suppose minimum copper cost would be the smallest wires
(that could handle the required power)!

A starting point for a more complete problem statement from an
engineering point of view might be, "Minimize total system cost,
expressed in net present value, of the system over its operating life,
under a particular set of performance and installation constraints."

Thanks, though, for your consideration of proximity effect. Without
that, I got the same answer as Roy, and appreciated Roy's inclusion of
the basis on which he made the calculation.

I'd point out that for coaxial cable construction, a particular D/d
minimizes the loss for a given D, and a different D/d minimizes the
electric field strength for a given power and therefore maximizes the
power handling capability of the line in the case where the line is
voltage-limited (generally low duty cycle pulse operation), and yet
another D/d minimizes the peak electric field strength for a given
voltage applied to the line. So long as the dielectric loss is
negligible and the dielectric is uniform, all those D/d ratios are
independent of dielectric fill. The D/d which minimizes loss is close
to the D/d which maximizes power handling capability of the line, if
the line is power-dissipation limited, but not exactly so because it
doesn't consider how the center conductor gets rid of its heat. The
minimum attenuation (if the inner and outer conductors are the same
smooth material and skin depth is small compared with the thickness of
each) is for D/d = 3.5911, which as others have pointed out yields
about 76.7 ohms with air dielectric, but if the dielectric is solid
polyethylene, it's about 51 ohms. If the center conductor is smooth
copper and the outer is corrugated aluminum, the minimum-attenuation
D/d increases. If the dielectric is foamed polyethylene, that pushes
the impedance back toward 75 ohms.

Cecil...if the line is limited in power handling by its temperature
rise (which is almost always the case, except for low duty cycle pulses
or line construction that's very different from what we commonly use),
the minimum attenuation configuration will also be the minimum net
dissipation configuration, and therefore close to the optimal power
handling capability. As an example of how cables we commonly use are
thermally limited, consider that solid-dielectric RG-213 at 40C ambient
and at 10MHz is rated at about 2kW. At 50 ohms, that's only 316 vrms
for a CW signal, and RG-213 is rated for use up to 5000 vrms, which
would 250 times as much power (so it better only come in little short
bursts that don't overheat the line). That "power handling is maximum
for Zo=30 ohms" thing is ONLY good if the line is limited by voltage
breakdown, not by temperature rise! It IS useful--in radar systems,
for example--but you must be careful to understand your application.

Cheers,
Tom

Reg Edwards wrote:
"John - KD5YI" wrote

Cecil Moore wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:


Many years back a similar sort of calculation was done for coax.

Coax

does not suffer from proximity effect. It's easier to work out.

The

answer was 75 ohms. That's how 75 ohms became the standard
comunications Ro.


I vaguely remember something about efficiency Vs power
handling capability being the difference in the 75 ohm
standard and the 50 ohm standard. Is that right?
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure

Usenet

News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!

120,000+

Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via

Encryption =----


Page 5-15 of The ARRL UHF/Microwave Experimenter's Manual says:

"Consider that both power handling capability and cable losses vary

with Zo.

It has been shown that cable losses are minimum at a characteristic
impedance on the order of 75 [Ohms], while power handling capability

is

maximum at a Zo of about 30 [Ohms]."

(The book used the Greek symbol rather than [Ohms])

The quoted passage is in a chapter by Dr. Paul Shuch, N6TX,

Professor of

Electronics, Pennsylvania College of Technology. At the end of the

quote, is

an indication to see footnote 13 which is:

"Moreno, Theodore, Microwave Transmission Design Data, Dover

Publications,

1948."

73,
John

============================================

It is unreliable to use ARRL and similar publications as Bibles. They
are written by amateurs for amateurs and tell only a sufficient
fraction of the whole story. Phrases such as "It has been shown that
.... " arise. They also refer to UHF/Microwave when LF and HF are of
interest. At microwave frequencies the dielectric loss cannot be
considered negligible.


For minimum attenuation, air-spaced coax Zo = 75 ohms and D/d = 3.6
For solid polyethylene Zo is smaller.


Confusion about the value of Zo which maximises power handling
capabilty arises because coax cables have different shapes and
materials to support the inner conductor. Even though the dielectric
may be considered lossless its presence affects matched line loss.


If my memory serves me correct, for maximum power handling I think 50
ohms refers to air-spaced coax and 30 ohms or thereabouts refers to
solid polyethylene dielectric. Or it may be the other way about. It
will be different again for a different dielectric permittivity.


For a coax line used as a tuned circuit, eg., when short-circuited,
maximum impedance at resonance occurs when Zo = 132 ohms and D/d ratio
= 9.1


And just to add a little more to the confusion, whether the outer
conductor is solid or braided also makes a small difference.
----
Reg, G4FGQ



Okay, Reg, then go read the material referenced by footnote 13. That's one
reason I included it. Maybe that way we won't need to rely on your memory.

John

Provided skin effect is fully operative, ie., skin depth is about
1/6th wire diameter or less, proximity effect increases wire
resistance by dividing normal skin-effect resistance of a single
straight wire by K :

K = SquareRoot( 1 - Square( D / S ) )

where D is wire diameter and S is centre-to-centre wire spacing. Note
that resistance increases towards infinity as the pair of wires
approach contact with each other. This is confirmed by precision
measurements.

To minimise line attenuation for any given wire spacing, maximise U
with respect to D :

U = D * InvCosh( S / D ) * SquareRoot( 1 - Square( D / S ) ) .

-----
Reg, G4FGQ

John - KD5YI wrote:
....

Okay, Reg, then go read the material referenced by footnote 13.
That's one
reason I included it. Maybe that way we won't need to rely on your
memory.

The confusion comes (in the quoting of the texts) because of a failure
to consider that there are two different mechanisms that can limit the
power handling capability of the line. One is power dissipation
(temperature rise), and the other is voltage breakdown. Clearly the
minimum power dissipation for a given input power and matched line
occurs where the line attenuation is minimum. But if you make the
inner conductor slightly larger, it may be able to get rid of heat
enough better (for a given line construction) that the inner conductor
temperature rise is slightly lower, even though the power dissipation
is slightly higher. I would expect, though, that the optimal
construction in most circumstances would result in an impedance only
marginally lower than the minimum attenuation case, and the improvement
would be a very small one. You'd have to convince me it was really
important to get me to worry about it beyond just minimizing
attenuation.

If it's voltage breakdown that limits the line power handling
capability, the air-insulated impedance of the line will be at a D/d
that results in about 30 ohms impedance for air-dielectric line, and
..66 times as much for solid polyethylene line.

And if it's maximum voltage-handling you want, the D/d results in
somewhere around 50 ohms with air-insulated line, about 33 ohms with
solid poly, if memory serves. I could look it up if it's really
important.

Generally in ham applications, (reasonably well matched) lines will be
power dissipation limited, not voltage limited.

Cheers,
Tom

From LF to VHF it is ALWAYS power dissipated in conductor resistance
which limits the power handling capability of the line. Voltage has
nothing to do with it. Above VHF dielectric loss becomes be the
limitation.

Consideration of ambient temperature is vital. Are you located in
Alaska at midnight in mid-winter? Or are you in the New Mexico desert
in July, at noon. It makes hell of a difference?

With coax everything depends on the temperture softening point of
polyethylene and on the the longer-term temperature deterioration
(hardening, cracking, brittleness) of the PVC sheath.

Is the cable embedded in an asbestos insulated brick wall or is it
suspended in free air with a breeze in the shade? Or in sunlight?

The power rating data provided by manufacturers for amateur grade
coaxial cables is useless nonsense. From inspection of manufacturers'
tables (watts) it can be deduced their ratings are based on the
melting point of polyethylene. Salesmen's blurbs, no doubt plagiarised
in ARRL publications, sound very good in order to sell the stuff.

To gain an elementary understanding of what it's all about, download
in a few seconds, easy to use, practical application, small program
"COAXRATE" from website below and run immediately. (Not zipped up).

Program "COAXRATE".
----
.................................................. ..........
Regards from Reg, G4FGQ
For Free Radio Design Software go to
http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp
.................................................. ..........

Reg Edwards wrote:
From LF to VHF it is ALWAYS power dissipated in conductor resistance
which limits the power handling capability of the line. Voltage has
nothing to do with it.

What if it arcs?
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

What if it arcs?
--
=================

It shows the voltage rating has been exceeded.

Reg wrote:

"From LF to VHF it is ALWAYS power dissipated in conductor resistance
which limits the power handling capability of the line. Voltage has
nothing to do with it. Above VHF dielectric loss becomes be the
limitation. "

Always? Hardly. Transmission of pulses with low duty cycle will get
you to voltage-limited operation pretty quickly. Transmission of power
to a high-resistance load where the line is a very small fraction of a
wavelength long may get you into voltage-limited operation. Those
perhaps aren't typical ham applications, but they do happen in
practice. Also, though the cable itself may not have trouble with the
applied voltage, the connectors at the ends may. They're generally
rated for much lower voltage than the line itself.

Also, for the small-diameter (nom. RG-58 size) cables I've been using
lately, conductor loss exceeds dielectric loss out past 10GHz. YYMV.

Cheers,
Tom

Reg Edwards wrote:
What if it arcs?

It shows the voltage rating has been exceeded.

But, but, but, Reg, you said "voltage has nothing
to do with it." :-)
--
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 =---

K7ITM wrote:
Also, though the cable itself may not have trouble with the
applied voltage, the connectors at the ends may. They're generally
rated for much lower voltage than the line itself.

Yep, during duststorms and thunderstorms, the connectors
arc. Arcing at the coax connectors of my IC-745, IC-725,
IC-706, and IC-756PRO has never seemed to injure any of
them. Is that just luck or are they that well protected?
--
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 =---

What if it arcs?

It shows the voltage rating has been exceeded.

But, but, but, Reg, you said "voltage has nothing
to do with it." :-)

==============================

I'm very sorry Cec, but in future I shall have to make a modest charge
for answering your questions. In advance if you wouldn't mind.

Provided skin effect is fully operative, ie., skin depth is about
1/6th wire diameter or less, proximity effect increases wire
resistance by dividing normal skin-effect resistance of a single
straight wire by K :

K = SquareRoot( 1 - Square( D / S ) )

where D is wire diameter and S is centre-to-centre wire spacing.
Note
that resistance increases towards infinity as the pair of wires
approach contact with each other. This is confirmed by precision
measurements.

To minimise line attenuation for any given wire spacing, maximise U
with respect to D :

U = D * InvCosh( S / D ) * SquareRoot( 1 - Square( D / S ) ) .

====================================

Roy, having given a little more thought to it, I think that by
differentiating U with respect to D and equating dU/dD to zero, things
will then simplify and the value of the ratio S /D, and hence Zo, will
be obtained directly.

If you still have enough enthusiasm I leave it to you to perform the
differentiation.
----
Reg.