Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here's why antenna efficiency is important for transmitting but not for
HF receiving. First, the definition of efficiency: For a transmitting antenna, it's the fraction of the power applied which is radiated. The remainder is turned into heat. For receiving, it's the ratio of the power which is delivered to the receiver to the power which could be delivered to the receiver if the antenna had no loss. The efficiency of a given antenna is the same when transmitting and receiving. Sometimes people use "efficiency" to mean other things -- this is the meaning of the term in all antenna literature and texts. Consider this communications system: transmitter - antenna - propagation path - antenna - receiver - listener A receiver unavoidably adds noise to the received signal. So if no noise is injected in the propagation path, the signal/noise ratio is the ratio of the signal entering the receiver to the noise created by the receiver's input circuitry. This is generally the case at VHF and above. When receiver noise dominates, as above, increasing the receive antenna's efficiency increases the signal arriving at the receiver, so the signal/noise ratio improves. This allows you to hear the signal better. But it only works for VHF and above. HF is a different story. At HF, there's a lot of atmospheric noise (injected in the "propagation path" part of the system), and unless the receive antenna and receiver are exceptionally bad, the atmospheric noise is much greater than the noise created by the receiver. I mentioned a simple test in my last posting, to see whether this is the case -- just disconnect the antenna. If the noise level drops, atmospheric noise dominates. It's not hard to make a receiver that atmospheric noise will dominate with a 3 foot whip antenna at HF. So at HF where atmospheric noise dominates, the signal/noise ratio is the ratio of the signal entering the receiver to the atmospheric noise entering the receiver. Compare this to the situation described above for higher frequencies. Now let's see what happens when we improve the efficiency of an HF receiving antenna. Because both the signal and the dominant noise come from locations in front of (that is, on the transmit side of) the antenna, improving the efficiency of the antenna makes both the signal and noise greater in the same proportion when they arrive at the receiver. There's no improvement at all in the signal/noise ratio. The effect is the same as turning up the receiver volume control. The only way you can improve the signal/noise ratio is to somehow favor one over the other, such as by making the antenna directional. And an inefficient, directional antenna like a Beverage or small loop will nearly always enable you to hear better in some directions than an efficient, nondirectional antenna because directionality helps and inefficiency doesn't hurt. How about transmit antenna efficiency? The signal strength from the transmit antenna is proportional to the antenna's efficiency. (It also depends on other things, but I'm just talking about efficiency here.) So if the efficiency of the transmit antenna increases from, say, 33% to 66%, the power levels of the signals at the receive antenna and the receiver double, and there's no change to the received noise, on either HF or VHF and above. So improving the transmit antenna efficiency always improves the signal/noise ratio at the receiver, in this case by 3 dB. That's why you can hear bunches of HF stations with a very inefficient antenna, but they won't hear you if you try to transmit using that same antenna -- it's because the noise is injected into the system between you. And it's likely that you'll be able to hear stations just as well with the very inefficient antenna as with a much larger, efficient one. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|