For some inexplicable reason, it seems that most of
the articles I read dealing with antenna and feedline efficiencies do not address the receive
side of the equation. Yes, transmit power is expensive and there is a legitimate reason to
reduce losses when converting power amplifier output to in-the-air power, especially for DX
operations. However, it doesn't do much good to launch the full permissible 1,500 watts PEP
and make a contact on the other side of the world if your system cannot receive a reply because
of the excessive line loss and/or mismatch loss between your antenna and your receiver.
Antennas and feedlines are reciprocal elements so if you allow, say, 12 dB net loss
there and compensate with additional transmitter output power, you also lose 12 dB of
receive signal power in the other direction. RF energy attenuates at a rate of 6 dB for
every doubling of distance, so that 12 dB loss cuts your minimum discernable signal to
a source 1/4 the distance compared to a 0 dB net loss.
You can find RF path loss calculators online, or download my
RF Cafe Calculator Workbook (MS Excel spreadsheet) and use its "1-Way Path Loss" worksheet.
The image above demonstrates the concept using 14 MHz on the 20-meter Ham band - a popular
band for DX work.
I use window
line in my example because it typically has much lower loss than coaxial cable. At 14 MHz,
450 Ω ladder line has a loss of around 0.1 dB per 100 feet, 300 Ω twin lead is about
0.4 dB per 100 feet, and 75 Ω RG-6/U coaxial cable has roughly 1 dB per 100
feet. That's a 10x attenuation factor between ladder line and RG-6/U. Increase your frequency
to 144 MHz (2-meter band), and the attenuation factors increase by 4 or more. Coaxial
is very convenient to use because its containment of the RF energy within the outer shield
makes installation a breeze since routing can be made with reckless abandon (or nearly so).
Twin lead and ladder/window line requires more care in routing to avoid the effects of nearby
structures. Sometimes coax is the only reasonable choice, but if your goal is to pull in the
weakest of stations (due to remote transmit power and/or poor atmospheric conditions), then
the lowest loss feedline must be considered.
Hopefully, authors will begin including the receive signal strength in their articles when
discussing optimization techniques and rationale.
Posted July 26, 2017
A huge collection of my 'Factoids' can be accessed from my 'Kirt's Cogitations'
table of contents.
Topical Smorgasbord, another manifestation of Factoids,
are be found on these pages:
| 2 |
4 | 5
| 6 | 7
| 8 | 9
| 10 |
11 | 12 |
13 | 14
| 15 |
16 | 17 |
18 | 19
| 20 |
21 | 22
| 23 |
24 | 25 |
26 | 27
| 28 |
29 | 30 |
31 | 32
| 33 |
34 | 35 |
All pertain to topics that are related to the general engineering and science theme
of RF Cafe.