Aperture antenna directivity calculation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the calculation of directivity for an aperture antenna, specifically addressing the use of electric field components in the far field. Participants explore the implications of using both E(theta) and E(phi) in the calculations and question the assumptions made in standard approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why directivity (D) is not calculated using both E(theta) and E(phi), suggesting that both components are non-zero in the far field.
  • Another participant clarifies that the sum of the magnitude squared of the electric field components should yield E_0^2, and distinguishes between two notations for the electric field components.
  • A participant acknowledges a misunderstanding in their earlier post and reiterates the assumption that phi=pi/2 maximizes the power intensity (U), questioning why only one component is used in calculations.
  • Another participant points out that the book specifies the maximum field occurs at \theta=0 and that using this angle in the equations leads to the expected results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate approach to calculating directivity, with no consensus reached on whether both E(theta) and E(phi) should be included in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the treatment of electric field components in the far field and the implications of the chosen angles for maximizing power intensity.

baby_1
Messages
159
Reaction score
16
Hello
Here is an uniform E filed distribution aperture antenna E and H far filed euations
2204887800_1448824658.png


and here is directivity calculation approach
6234799200_1448824658.png

my problem is why don't we calculate D with both E(theta) and E(phi)? My mean is:
instead of using
.latex?U%3Dr%5E2.P_%7Bave%7D%3Dr%5E2%28%5Cfrac%7B%7CE%28%5Ctheta%29%7C%5E2%7D%7B2%5Ceta%20%7D%29.gif

we should use
3Dr%5E2%28%5Cfrac%7B%7CE%28%5Ctheta%29%7C%5E2+%7CE%28%5Cphi%29%7C%5E2%7D%7B2%5Ceta%20%7D%29.gif

because both of them are not zero in far-filed zone and not zero at theta=pi/2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]E_0[/itex] is the magnitude of the electric field vector E. If you were to compute the sum of the magnitude squared of the components as you suggest, it should come out as [itex]E_0^2[/itex] as written in the text.

BTW, you have written something different. I assume that you mean [itex]E_\theta^2 + E_\phi^2[/itex] rather than [itex]E^2(\theta)+E^2(\phi)[/itex]? The latter is valid but means something else.
 
Dear marcusl
you are right I wanted to write
%3Dr%5E2%28%5Cfrac%7B%7CE_%7B%5Ctheta%7D%7C%5E2+E_%7B%5Cphi%7D%7C%5E2%7D%7B2%5Ceta%20%7D%29.gif

As the writer wrote we have
Bab%7D%7B%5Clambda%20%7D%29%5E2*%20%5Cfrac%7BE_%7B0%7D%5E2Sin%28%5Cphi%29%5E2%7D%7B2%5Ceta%20%7D.gif

and we assume phi=pi/2 that maximizes U.
and with my approach:
2%29%3D%28%5Cfrac%7Bab%7D%7B%5Clambda%20%7D%29%5E2*%20%5Cfrac%7BE_%7B0%7D%5E2%7D%7B2%5Ceta%20%7D.gif

and I didn't know why we assume only
gif.gif
to calculate power intensity ( U) ( as in the book mentioned)?
 
Last edited:
The book didn't say to use [itex]E_\theta[/itex], it said that the field is maximum at [itex]\theta=0[/itex]. Putting that angle into the equations and finding the sum of the squares of the components, as you did, gives the answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: baby_1

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K