Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28182 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2000 18:45:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by grants.core.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 19 Jan 2000 18:45:39 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12Azzc-0004AK-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:38:08 +0000 Received: from irwell.zetnet.co.uk ([194.247.47.48] ident=root) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 12Azza-0004AF-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:38:06 +0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from central.zetnet.co.uk (central.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.47.20]) by irwell.zetnet.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA11809 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:38:02 GMT X-ZSender: g3ldo@zetnet.co.uk X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <2000011918370868199@zetnet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:37:08 GMT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Peter Dodd" X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10000836 Subject: LF: Re: Antenna Modelling Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit G3KEV wrote > My 3 inverted L antennas are not strung together but spread out around the > mast so go back to the drawing board. When I progressed from 1 to 3 inv L > antennas I noticed signals up around 1S point (6 db both on tx and rx, also > the total base loading inductance dropped to 0.9 mh. Your 1.5 db > calculation does not correspond with practical observations at this qth. OK. I accept that the real antenna might differ from the model. This is because I do not know the detailed structure of the antenna or your ground characteristics and had to make some assumptions. I went for 'good' ground rather than 'very good' or 'poor', which were the other options. You can plug in ground conductivity and dielectric constant into the model if it is known. But lets accept your figure for the improvement to the original inverted L, i.e. 6dB. If you add 6dB to the original antenna gain figure of -15dB you finish up with a total gain of -9dB. Impressive! This means you can achieve 1 W erp with a transmitter output power of 25 - 30 Watts. > Theory only points one in a certain direction but in reality the practical > application often conflicts because of environmental considerations, ie > ground conductivity, number of radials and type etc. True, but again it can still be modelled by basing some of the input parameters on the real measurements. As you are all aware the losses in the antenna are the ground conductivity (and dielectric constant), coil losses and conductor I^2 R losses, which are in series with the antenna radiation resistance. If I know all the physical dimensions of the antenna, the transmitter power and the antenna current I can calculate the antenna radiation resistance (and antenna gain), and hence the losses (by altering the ground characteristics until the power and the antenna current agree with the supplied data). From that, erp, which I take to be the power dissipated in the radiation resistance, can be calculated by using a lossless model. It may not be perfect but, in the past, the calculated results have correlated well with observed signal level/distance readings. -- Regards, Peter, G3LDO