RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Far Field, Near Field

To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Far Field, Near Field
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk>
Reply-to: "Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:29:23 +0000
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Cortland Richmond wrote:

An article in the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine for October 2004 discusses the near field/far field distinction for dipoles of various lengths up to one wavelength. It concludes that the lower boundary of the far field is 9 wavelengths for 0.1 wavelength and 0.25 dipoles, 9.5 wavelengths for a half wave dipole, and 12 wavelengths for a one wavelength dipole.


The authors define the very near field zone as that region inside which the wave impedance is both different than 377 ohms and reactive power is non-negligible with respect to the active power. They conclude that the upper boundary of the very-near-field zone is 1.6 wavelengths from a 0.1 wavelength dipole, 1.75 wavelengths from a 0.25 wavelength dipole, 2.05 wavelengths from a half wave dipole and 2.85 wavelengths for a full-wave dipole.

This may have implications for measurements taken at Amateur stations and also of BPL emissions.

The actual physical E-field and H-field values around various lengths of dipoles have been known for a long time. Unless these authors are saying that existing calculations and measurements are wrong, all that can possibly be new is their analysis.

There is no sharp boundary between "near field" and "far field". Where you decide to draw the line will depend on your personal definitions of what words like "different than" and "non-negligible" (see above) actually mean in numerical terms. If these authors are setting very tight limits on the allowable differences, then of course that will push out the boundaries of what they choose to call the "near field".

Meanwhile, the physical fields around the dipoles remain exactly the same as they have always been.

Since health protection limits are ultimately based on SAR (Specific power Absorption Rate in W/kg) this paper should have no ultimate effect... though it may muddy the waters.

As for BPL, it only adds a little more mud to the superabundance that's already there.


-- 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>