I discovered an error in my calculations of basic resistive feedline loss, and
I am not afraid to admit it! In the process of reviewing various references, I
got the units wrong. Some formulas used frequency "f" in Hz, others in MHz.
Murphy led to mix them up in my calculations. Here is a summary of the
feedline loss in the recent discussion, checked and double-checked. The
pertinent formulas can be found in "Reference Data for Radio Engineers," 6th
ed, ITT/Howard W. Sams, 1982, pp 6-4 to 6-8, and 24-13.
At 2 MHz, skin depth on a copper conductor is 0.005 cm, or 2 mils. Thus, the
entire conductor is not being utilized by the RF current flow and its effective
resistance is greater than the DC resistance. The AC resistance is calculated
as 0.011 ohms/foot, which must be doubled to include both conductors of the
transmission line.
Keeping with the familiar loss per 100 ft. used for most feedline
specifications, the 2.2 ohms resistance in 100 feet of 450-ohm feedline results
in a loss of 0.02 dB/100 feet at 2 MHz, or 0.028 dB/100 feet at 4 MHz. 1400
feet of such a feedline would have a total loss of 0.28 dB at 2 MHz.
If the same wire was used at wider spacing in a 600 ohm line, the 2 MHz loss
would be reduced to 0.015 dB/100 feet.
On this count, K8LV is correct -- the laws of physics insist that this is the
lowest loss achievable. And Maxwell's work has held up pretty well over the
years...
On the issues of feedline radiation and low-loss transmission line
transformers, my earlier comments stand as-is.
With these numbers, the loss for 1400 feet of Tom's open-wire line should be in
the range of 0.4 dB -- it would take 3" hardline or Heliax(R) and many $$$ to
achieve this with coax.
73, Gary
K9AY
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|