DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=aOI31QLAuthAqvQg4v0azTlRkeG9J0ThRe/Ipo0bAJIEACMU++4A8HqssHk4Vl/p71Tvr/4thp2VWzlT141yij4vbuH3o3+r+DO2Jx82B8sy29qoGNCvkyzYhGbXNVzosjSRr6GGLU8mIpraKRgjrWMlXzVkhGP8l5O3iC1nO+o=
Message-ID: <fc7eccec0709280902u38e11a18sdc0bb0f709be94c2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:02:17 +0100
From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
In-Reply-To: <000001c801dd$a0ecc1d0$7900a8c0@athlon1200>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <000a01c80132$aae29df0$83e41a52@enigma>
	 <46FC071D.2090202@w1tag.com> <000601c801ae$38cc27a0$0fee1a52@enigma>
	 <fc7eccec0709280258m35a361dfy75caad028a834d57@mail.gmail.com>
	 <001d01c801c6$a918b420$0fee1a52@enigma>
	 <fc7eccec0709280550x2be11f58k7195c7bd0ffd8fb9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <000001c801dd$a0ecc1d0$7900a8c0@athlon1200>
DomainKey-Status: good (testing) 
Subject: Re: LF: A question of calibration
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Blimey !
That is dramatic.   And there is a minute wobble up to about 10 times
the distance as well - which would probably give 2% - 3% error.

So, in a way, one could almost say the RSGB figure "is right" to go so
far out:-)

Andy


On 28/09/2007, Dave Brown <tractorb@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> It's instructive to look at plots of the variation of wave impedance
> with distance from the source.
> These plots (acknowledgements to John Middleton and Marconi Insts,
> "Engineers EMC Workbook")
>
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tractorb/zfreespace.jpg
>
> are for 47.7 MHz to scale the distance for lambda/2.pi to 1 metre, but
> the principle remains the same for any frequency. The selection of
> lambda/2.pi for the transition between near and far field regions
> makes much more sense when you see it plotted this way. Note the
> impedance scale is on the extreme right.
>
> DaveB, NZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: LF: A question of calibration
>
>
> > Yes, it would be "certainly true" that 10 times the recognised
> > distance is in the far field. It certainly provides a huge safety
> > margin!
> >
> > Most texts use 2.pi, although I did once see 4.pi quoted.
> >
> > Andy  G4JNT
> >
> >
> > On 28/09/2007, Malcolm Harman <malcolm.fr263@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Andy.
> >>
> >> Interesting, have a look at
> >> http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/radiation_theory.htm where via
> >> the
> >> 500kHz section (so presumably meant for electrically small
> >> antennas) it says
> >> "It is generally well known that the far-field is predominantly a
> >> radiation
> >> field; this is certainly true when the distance is greater then 10
> >> x
> >> lambda/2pi." So there seems to be a factor of 10 difference from
> >> your
> >> equation.
> >>
> >> So using the RSGB paper, far field equates to 955 metres. Since the
> >> CCIR
> >> curves for LF/MF propagation give 3mV/m at 1km for 100mW erp and is
> >> within
> >> the distance ground conductivity has much effect, that's where I
> >> have been
> >> measuring.
> >>
> >> 73 Malcolm
> >> (G3NZP)
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
> >> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:58 AM
> >> Subject: Re: LF: A question of calibration
> >>
> >>
> >> > There appear to be two meanings to the term "far field" when
> >> > applied
> >> > to antennas.   One is usually reserved for electrically LARGE
> >> > antennas
> >> > and is the point where the wavefront can be considered to be
> >> > planar.
> >> > This distance is usually taken to be
> >> > 2.D^2/lambda, where D = largest antenna dimension and lambda =
> >> > wavelength.
> >> >
> >> > For electrically small antennas, the "far field" is beyond where
> >> > the
> >> > magnetic and electric components (which roll off faster than the
> >> > 1 /
> >> > R^2 of the radiation field) can be considered to be
> >> > insignificant.
> >> > This value is usually taken as being
> >> > lambda / (2.pi)
> >> >
> >> > Andy  G4JNT
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > FOr LF field strength measurement
> >> >
> >> > On 28/09/2007, Malcolm Harman <malcolm.fr263@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> >> John.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fascinating stuff and all your are papers duly saved. I sort of
> >> >> knew
> >> >> PA0SE
> >> >> must be right and while E/H = 377 ohms between the Helmholtz
> >> >> coils, we
> >> >> have
> >> >> to go to the far field of an antenna before a "plane" wave is
> >> >> sufficiently
> >> >> well formed and once again E/H = 377 ohms. Thanks for the
> >> >> clarification.
> >> >>
> >> >> 73 Malcolm.
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "John Andrews" <w1tag@w1tag.com>
> >> >> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:40 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: LF: A question of calibration
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Malcolm,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi. Can anyone reassure me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Be reassured. Your meter is measuring the magnetic field, and
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > calibration setup is primarily generating a magnetic field.
> >> >> > The cal is
> >> >> > being done under near-field conditions to permit the use of
> >> >> > low power
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > take advantage of knowing the mag field accurately based on
> >> >> > geometry
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > current measurement. The scale conversion to electric field
> >> >> > remains
> >> >> > valid
> >> >> > as long as you agree to take your real measurements under
> >> >> > far-field
> >> >> > conditions.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A further discussion of calibration techniques including a
> >> >> > simpler
> >> >> > arrangement than Helmholtz coils may be found at:
> >> >> > http://www.w1tag.com/LF_FSM.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > John Andrews, W1TAG
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.32/1033 - Release Date:
> > 27/09/2007 11:06
> >
> >
>
>