¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

Re: Definition of resonance


 

Section 13.3 of the Maxwell tertise states (NOT Clerk Maxwell of the famous
'4-equations' which tied EM theory together in the late 19th Century!!):

" The antenna tuner really does tune the antenna to resonance, in
spite of opinions to the contrary of those who are unaware of the
principles of conju-gate matching. The tuner obtains a match, by which
all reactances throughout the entire antenna system are
canceled, including that of the non-res-onant antenna, thereby tuning it to
resonance."


*He addresses the antenna plus 'tuner' as a system. In that respect, yes,
the matching network or transmatch 'tunes' the system such that all the
impedances 'agree' without loss or reflections. HOWEVER, most antenna
engineers would not approach the problem differently, as such. *


*1) Design the antenna by whatever means one chooses
2) Address the resulting matching as a circuit problem *

*Good hard engineering and true to the physics of the problem like Krauss
and Balinas approach the problem as such, two separate solutions. The
"Maxwell" treatise seems to me a bit removed from good hard antenna theory
(with calculus et. al. the stuff that gives us headaches)! It's more of a
technician's 'cookbook' rather than a solid treatment of the subject.
Neither the Krauss nor Balinas or Jasik (which I do not have and wish I
did!) treatments address the circuitry to establish a match. All rigorous
antenna references (those two are my personal favorites) derive the feed
impedance and leave it there. All antenna engineers I've ever worked with,
including the Dr. Allen Love who designed some of the first Arecibo feeds,
approach the problem as the two-step solution, not including any adjustable
reactive components. These texts treat various methods of establishing a
match at the antenna and as a part of the antenna like the gamma, T, and
transmission line matches, but not the traditional concept of the
'transmatch'. Once the antenna array / radiating structure is designed and
the feed impedance is established, it's turned over to the circuit
designers. The 'Transmatch' belongs in the purview of the RF engineers /
RF circuit designers.*


*All rigorous RF design engineering texts DEFINE RESONANCE as +jX = -jX,
leaving nothing but pure resistance of the radiating structure (antennas)
or lumped system (resonant and tuned circuits circuits). Personally, I
will ALWAYS side on the side of rigorous treatment of the subject as taught
in the hard, rigorous engineering and physics texts. *


*Adjustment of various reactive components in NO WAY can alter the physical
structure of what is considered 'the antenna'!!! ! ! ..... *

*Dave - W?LEV *

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:24 PM kurtt2000 <kurtt@...> wrote:

Hi! Interestingly, #1, Mr. Walter Maxwell (W2DU - SK) would disagree!
(Reflections II, 13-3,


)

FYI: k WB9FMC

On 9/16/2020 12:19 PM, Anne Ranch wrote:
Woo-doo (sic?) electronics
1. antenna tuner tunes the antenna
2. more radials on vertical (1/4 wavelength) antenna is better
3. end fed antenna needs counterpoise
4. no need for balum on coax fed dipole
5. to calculate length of dipole use 456 cubits / 7 cubits
6. SWR 1:1 is mandatory
7. avoid length of feed line in multiples of frequency of operation
8. SWR != 1:1 cause losses on feed line
......








--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.