Return-Path: Received: from rly-df02.mx.aol.com (rly-df02.mail.aol.com [172.19.156.15]) by air-df08.mail.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDF083-52e4a0db0ae3ae; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:13:13 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-df02.mx.aol.com (v123.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDF021-52e4a0db0ae3ae; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:13:04 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1M51tL-00086g-JG for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 19:12:19 +0100 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1M51tL-00086X-5W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 19:12:19 +0100 Received: from mailout07.t-online.de ([194.25.134.83]) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M51tJ-000423-5X for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 19:12:19 +0100 Received: from fwd09.aul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 1M51sH-0000q6-02; Fri, 15 May 2009 20:11:13 +0200 Received: from [192.168.2.22] (GDW6sYZCrh0p92e3qCcXG55J+TTyEP1kWTCqf2QdB9MZv3NjJwIn04oN+Wi5O77w8r@[93.211.80.87]) by fwd09.t-online.de with esmtp id 1M51sD-1zPetc0; Fri, 15 May 2009 20:11:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: hajo.brandt.dj1zb@t-online.de To: X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 6.07.0001 Date: 15 May 2009 18:11 GMT Message-ID: <1M51sD-1zPetc0@fwd09.t-online.de> X-ID: GDW6sYZCrh0p92e3qCcXG55J+TTyEP1kWTCqf2QdB9MZv3NjJwIn04oN+Wi5O77w8r X-TOI-MSGID: 4beafe79-3460-4572-b410-523e0f8ff9bb X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,NO_REAL_NAME=0.55,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Aerial current Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 Dear all, according to my experience radio transmitters with good efficiency and meeting all relevant data are usually designed for a load (!) of 50 ohms only, nothing else. But this does not mean that the source impedance of the transmitter output feeding the cable will also be 50 ohms! Remember that the supply voltage of the amplifier remains constant whilst the current within the output device may vary. The condition, that a power amplifier must also have a defined output source impedance I have found in the field of broadband cable driver amplifiers only, in that case mostly 75 ohms. But such a defined output source impedance can only be achieved in class A amplifiers and by using a lot of feedback in or around the output amplifier, a solution that degrades efficiency (not acceptable for RF power amplifiers). These amplifiers also use feedback at their input to achieve an imput impedance of 75 ohms. One typical solution for 75 ohms input and out impedance in this field has been a three stage grounded emitter amplifier, with resistive feedback from last collector to the first base. As such feedback will result in an input and output impedance of about zero ohms, 75 ohms series resistances wee added at the input and output to get 75 ohms input and output impedance! Losses did not count in this case. To get the feedback stable, the frequency limits of the transistors involved had to be much higher than the highest operating frequency of the system, of course. Similar solutions are found in the application of modern HF operational amplifiers. I hope this helps to clear the situation. Therefore I feel that impedance measurements into the output of a typical radio transmitter would be questionable. I rely on good SWR in the feed cable and maximum RF-voltage across the cable impedance, and this should also correspond to maximum output and aerial current at LF. HW? 73 Ha-Jo, DJ1ZB "Richard Newstead" schrieb: > Rik Strobbe wrote: > > Hello Richard, > > > > is you antenna matched to 50 Ohm ? > > Not sure but the optimum power transfer suggests that it is matched to > the output impedance of the transmitter. > > > If you just bring it to resonance (loading coild adjustment) the > > antenna impedance can be anything between 10 and 100 Ohm. > > And some 10m's length of coax can cause some odd impedance > > transformations, even on 500kHz. > > > > > There is no coax involved (well only 30cm) here so it is not that! > > Strange! > >