This series of articles deal with the more technical aspects of antennas and the practical theory behind their use. You will find this guide to be a pragmatic approach to antenna theory. The views expressed here are the author’s and are not meant to be the definitive text on the subject. You should also be armed with the knowledge that there may be changes from time to time where technology advances and the author deems it approprate to update the text.
You should do your won research and fill in where there are
Much of the material in this series is derived from publications by the ARRL. Namely,
The ARRL Handbook ®
The ARRL Antenna Book ®.
You should consider those publications reference material in this cursory study of a very complex subject. The most recent editions are available from the ARRL Store online and can be seen at many hamfests, but may vary in quality from used to mint conditon, over many past versions. Any should be considered a valuable addition to your reference library on antennas.
I hope you enjoy this. Please email me if you have questions or would
like to see a particular subject enhanced.
In our first installment we learned some terms used in discussing antennas and feed lines. We also dispelled the myth that a high SWR sends RF back to your finals and can cause damage from the RF. If that is what you still think, reread the first article and think about it some more!
In this series we will assume for purposes of discussion that "efficiency" describes the radiation effectiveness of the total antenna system. This is an important choice of words that should be remembered as you learn.
The efficiency of any antenna is viewed in terms of the entire "SYSTEM". That is, the coax leading to the antenna, the matching of the antenna (if there is any) and the antenna structure itself.
This distiction is made to minimize the use of terms like "works" (e.g. "This antenna works well.").
There is no easy, cut and dried, measure of antenna efficiency. Bandwidth, number of DX contacts worked, coil type, antenna type, mounting type, antenna shootouts, make, brand, matching method, cap hat, nil, not, nix, nothing! Even modeling can give you a false impression. So, the question remains, how do you know if it is efficient?
Efficiency can be calculated (not exactly, but close enough) if all we know the three Rs (Rr, Rc, and Rg) values. All we have to do is add these factors together to get Rt (Rr+Rc+Rg=Rt), then divide Rr by Rt. For an average 8 foot antenna mounted on an average vehicle, and using an estimated ground losses, the efficiency ranges between .2% on 80 meters to maybe 80% on 10 meters. These figures are based on data taken from Chapter 16 of the ARRL Antenna handbook. By the way, if you want to know just how important coil Q is, calculate the efficiency differences between the figures for coil Qs of 50, and 300. If you prefer to use dB as a reference, the formulas is 10 log (Rr/Rt).
The aforementioned method assumes we know the radiation resistance. We don’t, at least [not] with certainty, even if we go through the necessary formula machinations listed in the ARRL Antenna Handbook. However, there is a way to get close, or at least as close as we need to be.
In the Technical Correspondence section of the September 2006 issue of QST (page 57), are a few paragraphs written by Dr. Jack Belrose, VE2CV. Jack explains how to use an antenna analyzer and EZNEC to calculate the efficiency of a mobile antenna. The basic premise is to compare the measured input impedance of your mobile antenna, compare it to the modeled impedance given by EZNEC, and then adjusting the coil Q (resistive loss) until the two impedances (measured and calculated) equal. Then reading the programs calculated radiation efficiency.
[Author Note: If you use another computer modeling application, like
MMANA-Gal or 4nec2, you may get different results due to the calculation
methods used in each application. EZNEC uses the NEC2 or NEC3 method.
MMANA-Gal and 4nec2 use the Method Of Moments calculations or NEC2. They
will differ from one another slightly.
Before you stress out over it, rest assured there are strengths and weaknesses in each. It is more a personal choice than an emperical precision ranking. The ARRL and many amateurs experimenting with antenna design, use the commercial application EZNEC or EZNEC Pro. Another whole worldwide group uses freeware applications MMANA-Gal or 4nec2. Again, it is a matter of choice and not necessarily accuracy.]
There are a couple of things to remember when using this method. First, the analyzer’s frequency must be adjusted until the reactive component is zero (X=Ø[, assuming the analyser you are using indicates this value]), and not for the lowest SWR! Then, and only then, will the resistive value be correct (within tolerances).
[Author Note: As we saw in lesson 1 in this series, when reactance (the “imaginary” part) is zero, the only thing left is resistance (the “real” part)].
The measurement needs to be made without any matching devices attached. In other words, we need to know the actual input impedance, not a transformed one. And as mentioned above, the measurement must be taken as close to the antenna as possible, and not at the transceiver end of the feed line!
Depending on the program used (Nec, EZNEC Pro, [MMANA-Gal, 4nec2] etc.) the spread of calculated efficiencies may be as much as ±10%. If in doubt, always choose the worse case scenario, as the best case usually assumes facts not in evidence. Lastly, just because your efficiency is great on 20 meters, is no indication what it will be on some other band, higher or lower. In fact, the higher bands may have greater loss due to capacitive coupling [to ground or other objects].
Just for the record, EZNEC, and most of the other numeric electromagnetic coding engines, are marvelous programs. They allow expert, and neophyte alike, to model all–manner of antenna parameters. However, the results are dependent on the data provided! For example, leaving out the feed line when doing an analysis will skew the results. Another common error is miscalculating ground losses. Therefore, assuming and quoting the results verbatim without a thorough understanding of how antennas behave (especially mobile ones), often leads users astray. In other words, these applications are a tool, not a panacea! — Alan R. Applegate, KØBG.com
Given this knowlege, we must make the distiction permanent between antenna
efficiency and the term "works". One is a calculated value based on measured
values. The other is a very subjective term used to describe results in
unmeasureable ways (i.e. unsubstantiated opinion).
This would be a good time to discuss the nature and purpose of antenna tuners, often called a matchbox. This device is quite simple in application even though much engineering often goes into the design.
Let’s look at a common hookup for the tuner. The coax from the rig goes to the “transmitter” terminal on the matchbox. The antenna coax goes to the “antenna” terminal(s) on the tuner.
Adjusting the “Antenna”, “Transmitter” and “Inductor” controls on the front panel in various combinations will seem to indicate that you can lower the SWR of an antenna. In fact, most tuners have a SWR meter built in as a presumed indicator of SWR. Sorry to burst your bubble again, but this too is a myth.
Myth #2 comes from the false assumption that the SWR meters indicate that you have “tuned” your antenna (assuming the tuner is in the shack as opposed to near the antenna).
What has actually happened, is that the tuner has compensated for the mismatched impedances between your rig and the coax. You have, in effect, “tuned your coax to the rig”. The impedance seen by the tuner is a result of the entire antenna system from antenna feed point to feedline connector in the shack. Adjusting the tuner (manual or automatic – internal or external) supplies reactance and resistive characteristics to the radio that it expects. This does nothing for the other end of the coax in terms of “tuning” the antenna. The low SWR readings make your rig happy, because it is operating with good output efficiency. The final tubes or transistors will be able to generate RF without having to work very hard (heat up).
What if we move the tuner to the other end of the coax? Granted not every situation would make this a practical situation, but for our purposes – let’s say we could do it (some automatic tuners are made to be mounted at the antenna as they come or could be mounted in a suitable box for protection from the elements). What happens then?
The “Transmitter” port of the tuner is connected to the coax from the rig in the shack to the antenna. We must insert the tuner in the feed line before it reaches the antenna. The “Antenna” port of the tuner connects, either directly or with a short piece of appropriate feedline, to the antenna feed point (e.g. some antennas, like HF verticals, inverted “L”, etc. need only a single wire from the tuner to the antenna and one from the tuner to ground). Tuning the controls will now match the antenna to the feedline at the frequency used to tune it to the lowest SWR.
Ultimately, this is the best of all situations when available.
The question then becomes – Why?
We discovered earlier in our “tuner in the shack” scenario, that a tuner in the shack will not change the SWR presented to the feedline by the antenna. That will remain the same. In that scenario, the tuner only matches the shack end of the coax to the rig. This scenario could represent an operational problem.
RF returning from the antenna to the rig (due to the mismatche between the antenna feed point impedance and the feedline characteristic impedance) tends to flow on the outside of the coax cable. This unshielded RF flow can then radiate just like your antenna. Twin lead users are not immune either (although the effect is much less noticeable). Because SWR is an additive component (reference or discussion from the first article) the same radiation occurs in twin wire transmission line as coaxial cable because the delicate balance between the two conductors will not be equal. This is an unintended consequence of uncontrolled SWR. It is often manifested in incidental RF sparking or burns, sometimes symptoms of RF in your audio, occuring in the ham shack when transmitting. Also, the radiation pattern of your antenna may be altered due to the additional radiation from the feedline – adding a more or less omni directional component rather than the usual directional pattern expected. Sometimes you don’t know about it until the neighbors complain you are getting into their telephone or stereo.
One unenlightened, but well meaning, ham decided to eliminate the RF on the coax by grounding the coax shield at his vertical antenna and at the shack ground buss (no it was not me...chuckle chuckle). When he tried to transmit, he discovered nothing would tune up properly. What has happened? If you think about it, what he had done was to essentially reduce the feedline impedance by half and made it into a giant tuned circuit (remember coax has both series inductance and parallel capacitive characteristics). Depending on the length of the cable, it could become a very broadband tuned circuit. All sorts of problems could arise from this including but not limited to radiation on a different frequency than your transmitter is tuned to.
So, if we cannot put the tuner at the antenna, how do we avoid the antenna system SWR problem ... and should we?
Ideally, the antenna would exhibit exactly (or almost nearly) the same characteristic impedance as the feedline at any frequency we wish to transmit on. This would insure the maximum transfer of power from the feedline to the antenna. Practically, however, this is rarely (if ever) the case. The closest we could practically come is to use a multi–band log periodic antenna that covers all the frequencies we normally transmit on. Even then, the impedance characteristics are not perfect on every band within its operating range.
The best situation for most hams is to construct multiple single, two, or three band antennas that have a very low SWR over the normal operating range. The same principal applies to multi–band beam antennae.
This is a compromise at best, but one most hams can live with. When possible, placing the tuner remotely at the antenna will always provide the highest available matching possibilities and most beneficial results for broad frequency / band coverage. For operating conditions that do not allow this, use some practical guidelines to avoid the undesirable effects mentioned earlier.
Rule #1: Don’t try to match SWR conditions that exceed 3:1 with your matchbox. Remember the SWR on the feedline and antenna will still be the same no matter how low the tuner is able to indicate the SWR is in the shack.
Rule #2: Construct well–designed, low SWR antennas for a broader frequency range than you will operate. In other words; if your antenna will stay under 3:1 from 14.000 to 14.100, trying to use it in the 14.200–14300 range of the band would not be recommended even with a tuner unless the tuner is remotely located at the antenna and can tune the entire range of mismatches that may occur.
Rule #3: Know the characteristic impedance of your antenna at the frequency you will be transmitting. Use only good quality transmission line that is the closest match for the antenna. If the antenna feedpoint impedance is 72 +j75 as measured by an analyzer, RG216 or RG6X is a better choice than even the most expensive RG8 or RG214. Let your tuner provide the rig–to–coax matching of impedances. The 75:50 ohm mismatch is only 1.5:1 which almost all tuners can handle.
In the past, experimentation and general knowledge of antenna and transmission line characteristics was difficult to obtain. The high cost and low availability of measuring instruments were prohibitive for most hams. Today, very sophisticated antenna and network analyzing instrumentation is available for the ham shack in the under $500 range. The most well known of these is the MFJ SWR analyzer in various models. This valuable tool (or several others that serve the same purpose) should be one of the first purchases for the serious antenna experimenter (worry about an SWR meter later – when you fully understand SWR). If you like to homebrew, the 1980 ARRL Handbook has a project to build an antenna impedance bridge. This device is not as accurate, but will go a long way toward presenting appropriate data to the experimenter.
To Balun or not to Balun, is Unun the answer?