Can a crystal radio detect an infinitesimal load at a distant radio station?

[Averagesupernova]

Ok conway, if I am understanding you correctly your claim (in quotes below) is that a perfectly terminated dipole in free space will reradiate the same amount of power that would be absorbed in the load resistor.

In fact, in the ideal case, as much power will be re-radiated outwards as will be absorbed at the load.

So my question is that if this is the case, then would it not be logical that in a transmitting antenna, when we drive the feedpoint should we not have reflected power back into the transmitter by the same logic?

 

[conway]

So my question is that if this is the case, then would it not be logical that in a transmitting antenna, when we drive the feedpoint should we not have reflected power back into the transmitter by the same logic?

Yes, that'swhat happens if you try to deliver the maximum theoretical output of your power amplifier into the transmitting antenna. Of course you don't normally operate an antenna that way. Because you would blow your amplifier.

 

[conway]

My last answer might have been a little glib, although it's technically correct. The point is if you turn a light bulb in your living room, you can analyze the lamp cord as a transmission line and there are all kinds of reflections, mismatches, and standing waves to deal with. It actually all works out in the end but its not an especially helpful way of seeing what's going on.

I don't actually know what the wasted power is in a 10-kW AM radio transmitter, but there's no technical reason why you'd want to match the amplifier impedance to the load.

 

[vk6kro]

I believe the question right now is whether a properly terminated dipole will reradiate anything at all.


I suspect that it will. If the dipole current is allowed to flow at all, then the dipole will still radiate. Like this:

The ultimate case would be two unconnected quarter wave lengths with no current flowing between them. I wouldn't expect this to radiate at all.

Yes, that'swhat happens if you try to deliver the maximum theoretical output of your power amplifier into the transmitting antenna. Of course you don't normally operate an antenna that way. Because you would blow your amplifier.

An amplifier set up to deliver a constant carrier can deliver say 75% of its DC power into a 50 ohm load. If the antenna feedline looks like 50 ohms, then this maximum power will be delivered to the feedline.
If there were no losses, this power would also be delivered to the antenna and all of it would be radiated.
This is the normal way transmitters work without any risk of blowing up the amplifier.

 

[conway]

I don't know where you got your graph from, but the re-radiated power should be quadratic with the antenna current, not linear.

 

[vk6kro]

Yes, but that wasn't the point of it. The point was that the radiated power is not zero when the matched condition exists.

 

[conway]

The statement at issue was my claim that the re-radiated power is not only non-zero, it is equal to the absorbed power.

 

[Averagesupernova]

If the antenna feedline looks like 50 ohms, then this maximum power will be delivered to the feedline.
If there were no losses, this power would also be delivered to the antenna and all of it would be radiated.

The above is the part I am interested in. When a transmitter drives a properly matched antenna system there is nothing the transmitter see differently than if the transmitter drives a resistor. So, we can assume that as VK6KRO has said ALL of the power the transmitter delivers to the antenna is radiated accept some loss which we will consider negligible. So why should the reverse not be true? Am I looking at this wrong? I've never really considered this before.

 

[conway]

I don't mind analyzing what goes on in a transmitter station, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be really really unhelpful in trying to understand how you absorb power with a receiving antenna. I was pretty serious when I said that it would be equally helpful to go into your living room and try and analyze a lamp cord as a transmission line, with reflections and standing waves. Technically it can be done, but to what end??

 

[vk6kro]

The statement at issue was my claim that the re-radiated power is not only non-zero, it is equal to the absorbed power.

I missed that in the exchange while I was typing my replies, but intuitively it seems very elegant. You mean the power absorbed into the matched load, I guess.
Pending a proper proof, it seems feasible.

So, we agree that a receive antenna can reradiate some or most of its received signal?

You might like to rephrase this though:
I don't actually know what the wasted power is in a 10-kW AM radio transmitter, but there's no technical reason why you'd want to match the amplifier impedance to the load.
This is not like loading a power station until its output voltage dropped to half. RF power amplifiers really do operate like this and impedance matching is very important with them.

Receive antennas are not normally matched for maximum power transfer. They are presented with a higher impedance than that, to achieve higher voltage into the receiver.

The above is the part I am interested in. When a transmitter drives a properly matched antenna system there is nothing the transmitter see differently than if the transmitter drives a resistor. So, we can assume that as VK6KRO has said ALL of the power the transmitter delivers to the antenna is radiated accept some loss which we will consider negligible. So why should the reverse not be true? Am I looking at this wrong? I've never really considered this before.

The comparable situation while transmitting would be that the antenna that is transmitting also receives the transmitted signal. I suppose it does, but I can't think how you would prove it.

 

[berkeman]

I think I have a good counterargument to an RX antenna (well matched) re-radiating anything. If it did, then antenna array steering would be much more complicated (if not impossible), which it isn't.

In antenna arrays, we phase shift the RX signals to steer the direction of the gain lobe. For a 2-element array, you can steer the direction of the gain lobes by phase-shifting the RX signals before combining them. And if you don't phase shift them, you get your lobes right where you expect them, front-to back, with gain determined by the RX signals only, not mitigated by some reflected energy passing between the two elements. We use this every Field Day, and antenna array equations are pretty well understood.

Whew. Glad that's settled!

 

[conway]

I think I have a good counterargument to an RX antenna (well matched) re-radiating anything. If it did, then antenna array steering would be much more complicated (if not impossible), which it isn't.

This is logical, but remember you're talking about practical receivers where the antenna current is only a tiny fraction of the theoretical matched current.

 

[conway]

You might like to rephrase this though:
I don't actually know what the wasted power is in a 10-kW AM radio transmitter, but there's no technical reason why you'd want to match the amplifier impedance to the load.
This is not like loading a power station until its output voltage dropped to half. RF power amplifiers really do operate like this and impedance matching is very important with them.

I'd like to concede this point...but I still have to wonder. I looked up the Wikipedia article on electronic amplifiers and it's a huge topic. It's true that RF amplifiers operate in a mode where a large portion of the power is dissipated in the output stage, but it's not totally clear to me that impedance matching is the reason for this. To some extent it appears to be just the practicalities of transistor amplifier design. For a radio transmitter station, I can't see any reason why the designer wouldn't want to put the maximum percentage of the available power into the transmitted wave. I stand to be corrected on this point if possible.

 

[berkeman]

This is logical, but remember you're talking about practical receivers where the antenna current is only a tiny fraction of the theoretical matched current.

Nope. True at any RX E&M level. Field tested. That's why it's so helpful in this thread.

 

[vk6kro]

For a radio transmitter station, I can't see any reason why the designer wouldn't want to put the maximum percentage of the available power into the transmitted wave.

That is exactly what designers are trying to do. Power transistors and RF power tubes as used in transmitters are expensive and it makes sense to get as much power out of them as possible.

However, the realities of power stage design mean that efficiencies of only 50% are possible in some modes (SSB linear amplifiers) and up to 70 % in other modes (Class C CW transmitters).

You might wonder why anyone would use an amplifier that only has 50 % efficiency but that is only while the user is talking. When they take a breath, the power used is negligible.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Someone should establish some rules for "thought experiments."
You're talking about astronomical distances. Here, you take sides
with the receiver and switch to the viewpoint of the transmitter.
Then you jump back to the receiver. Seems dangerous to me,
because information itself can't travel faster than light. I don't like
your thought experiment.

I took issue with the notion of a RX antenna "drawing power" from a TX antenna when they are well separated. Naturally, when they are close, their mutual impedance can affect the input impedance of the TX antenna (as in a Yagi type array, with parasitics) but any model which implies the "drawing out" process at great distance should work over any distance - hence, I took it a bit further to where propagation time is a significant factor. As a thought experiment I don't think it was over the top to consider ("take sides with") both RX and TX; after all, they are both involved in the process. Where was the problem with that?.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think I have a good counterargument to an RX antenna (well matched) re-radiating anything. If it did, then antenna array steering would be much more complicated (if not impossible), which it isn't.

In antenna arrays, we phase shift the RX signals to steer the direction of the gain lobe. For a 2-element array, you can steer the direction of the gain lobes by phase-shifting the RX signals before combining them. And if you don't phase shift them, you get your lobes right where you expect them, front-to back, with gain determined by the RX signals only, not mitigated by some reflected energy passing between the two elements. We use this every Field Day, and antenna array equations are pretty well understood.

Whew. Glad that's settled!

Actually, that only applies to active receiving arrays. For a number of elements, situated close to each other, if you want to direct the main beam by passive phasing of the outputs, the element currents will affect each other (more of the mutual impedance matrix values become significant). The local (resonant / reactive) fields around the elements (E and H in quadrature at this point) can be quite significant and they talk to each other*. Many active arrays deliberately use 'voltage probe' elements rather than matched elements so that you can control them without needing to account for their effect on each other. Steering multi-element TX arrays is a real problem because you need to shift as much actual power from each element as possible. Try designing a simple steerable two element mf mast array with 1/2 wave spacing. For some beam angles the matching / driving is very hard.

*Things seem to change from I and V in a dipole and associated fields, which are in quadrature and E and H fields in the distant radiated wave, which are in phase.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Matching:
To get the maximum signal power radiated, you have to match your TX to the antenna. That means you just have to put up with the fact that the output TX stage 'wastes' a lot (half) of the power.
For supplying electricity, you want just the opposite. You need power to be delivered with as little power as possible wasted in the generator / distribution. You would ideally have a 'voltage source'. The last thing you want is a matched system in the National Grid.

 

[conway]

I hope Berkeman agrees that Sophie's explanation takes care of his paradox with the receiving arrays. It's always impressive to me when people can show how the practical world lines up with the theory.

I'm not sure we've totally reached consensus on the question of impedance matching at the transmitter station. It's not clear to me from various postings whether the wasted power is on account of intentional impedance matching or just a practical fact of high frequency amplifier design.

 

[berkeman]

Actually, that only applies to active receiving arrays. For a number of elements, situated close to each other, if you want to direct the main beam by passive phasing of the outputs, the element currents will affect each other (more of the mutual impedance matrix values become significant). The local (resonant / reactive) fields around the elements (E and H in quadrature at this point) can be quite significant and they talk to each other*. Many active arrays deliberately use 'voltage probe' elements rather than matched elements so that you can control them without needing to account for their effect on each other. Steering multi-element TX arrays is a real problem because you need to shift as much actual power from each element as possible. Try designing a simple steerable two element mf mast array with 1/2 wave spacing. For some beam angles the matching / driving is very hard.

*Things seem to change from I and V in a dipole and associated fields, which are in quadrature and E and H fields in the distant radiated wave, which are in phase.

Not true. Why are the reflector and director elements in a Yagi not terminated? If they were, your Yagi wouldn't work so well...

 

[sophiecentaur]

To maximise the power delivered from the feeder into the antenna you need to match at the drive point - that's straightforward enough and you try to minimise your VSWR / reflection coefficient at the join.
To get power actually into the feeder from the transmitter there has to be some degree of matching. A low impedance output stage will not drive much power into a high impedance load without using massive voltages - and vice versa. But, as you imply, conway, there are practical limits to how well you can match a (probably non-linear) amplifier stage and there will be inherent losses in the device in any case. I don't think that there are any particular design problems for 'bog standard' frequency operation, these days. They seem to build big HF transmitters a bit like audio amps these days - class B push pull blah blah.
To avoid echoes, over voltage and or odd frequency response, it is necessary to match at least one end of a feeder.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Not true. Why are the reflector and director elements in a Yagi not terminated? If they were, your Yagi wouldn't work so well...

A Yagi antenna is not steerable - it is designed to have lots of current in its parasitic elements in order to to drive it in one particular direction. It has only one driven element and it is not what I was describing. To steer with two or more driven elements is the problem. Then the mutual impedance between two elements is a nuisance. You can end up chasing your tail if you want to fire in certain directions.

 

[berkeman]

A Yagi antenna is not steerable - it is designed to have lots of current in its parasitic elements in order to to drive it in one particular direction. It has only one driven element and it is not what I was describing. To steer with two or more driven elements is the problem. Then the mutual impedance between two elements is a nuisance. You can end up chasing your tail if you want to fire in certain directions.

I was referring to the Yagi in RX mode, not TX. I thought that's what was in question -- whether there is a transmitted field from a well-matched (terminated) antenna when it is receiving a signal.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think we must be at cross purposes here. A Yagi has only one feed point (or 'driven point'), whether in transmit or receive mode and, as the two directivity patterns are indistinguishable, the relative currents in the elements must be more or less the same in each mode. The parasitics are, of course, 'short circuited' and not terminated. The Yagi only works with the elements around resonance. In the receive mode, the explanation for its operation must be that the parasitics resonate in similar relative phases to the driven element. Whether transmitting or receiving, this must take a few cycles to build up when the wave is first received or when the TX is turned on. After that, the currents in the elements are mutually set by the self impedances of the elements themselves and their mutual impedances with the other elements.
What has that got to do with the problems associated with multiple fed element antennae, though? The thread may have migrated here and there, as they do, but my comments were in response to comments about steering multi element arrays and the problems of currents flowing in elements affecting the current / input impedances of other driven elements. (The Yagi is not the only directive antenna and it certainly is not steerable - apart from by waving it around)

 

[berkeman]

I was using the example of an RX Yagi to try to make the point that you only get reflections off of unterminated antennas (shorted in this case), not off of terminated antennas (which I think is what conway has been saying. It seemed a convenient example. A Yagi with terminated directors and reflector would not be any more directional than a regular dipole.

And I brought up the example of steerable RX antenna arrays for the same reason. In RX mode, I'm not aware of any interaction between the antennas (no reflected signal bouncing between the elements and needing to be taken into account in the pattern calculation).

Sorry if I haven't been clear about why I was using these examples.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I getcha now. But the fact is that, although there are higher currents in parasitics, there are still currents in driven elements (TX or RX) and these have mutual effects. If you ignore them, your antenna just won't do what you want it to do. If it is a TX array, you can end up with transmitter matching problems as well as a wrong pattern and, if it is an RX array, the pattern goes to pot.

 

[conway]

I hate it when people start off by saying "even if you're right..." because its a big cop-out: you're not even taking a stand on whether he's right or wrong. But in Berkeman's case I don't see that I have any choice: "even if he's right" about how you steer a receiver array, it's a really indirect connection to the original question of a crystal radio, which involves a single electrically short dipole. So whether he's right or wrong I don't think he can claim to have dealt with the question of how much re-radiation there is in a tuned matched short dipole.

 

[sophiecentaur]

However short the dipole is, there will be currents flowing in it - in phase and out of phase with the PD. These currents will radiate. It will only be the real part of the current and PD that will be absorbed by the receiver. Matching the short dipole will involve other reactive components to resonate with the capacity that the short dipole represents and to transform to the receiver input impedance. In practice, you can only go so far down that road and the radiator gets less efficient due to the finite resistance of the conductors for really short radiators.
Just think how hard it is to make a 'stealth' aircraft. If it were simply a matter of making an aircraft surface look like a set of matched dipoles then they would be built like that. They all re-radiate - which is why they have to be made with 'least worst' reflecting shapes.
Very short elements won't re-radiate much - and neither will they absorb much power. Arrays of very short elements can be treated as voltage probes because there is so little scattered power. (This accords with experience - even down to the sky being blue.)
The earlier quoted 2:1 ratio of currents for unmatched and matched termination (way back in the thread) seems to have been forgotten but it should be taken into consideration.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Ya know, it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference. Any power that was reradiated had to be 'drawn in' by the antenna in the first place. For all I care every available amount of power that the transmitting antenna hundreds of miles away radiated could have been absorbed by a receiving antenna which would then have turned around and reradiated all but what we normally see at the feedpoint of an antenna.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

I took issue with the notion of a RX antenna "drawing power" from a TX antenna when they are well separated. Naturally, when they are close, their mutual impedance can affect the input impedance of the TX antenna (as in a Yagi type array, with parasitics) but any model which implies the "drawing out" process at great distance should work over any distance - hence, I took it a bit further to where propagation time is a significant factor. As a thought experiment I don't think it was over the top to consider ("take sides with") both RX and TX; after all, they are both involved in the process. Where was the problem with that?.

It makes me feel uneasy, because when you're at RX the latest news
you can possibly have about TX is limited to whatever transmissions
or other electromagnetic radiation you are receiving. This is the most
current knowledge you can possibly have. The same would be true
but in reverse if you were at TX. The region outside the "light-cone" is
called "elsewhere" and you cannot know about that in your "here-now"
with certainty but only as a probability. Even when you look up at the
stars, what you see is the most current knowledge available. Any more
current news would be outside the light-cone and only a probability as
far as you're concerned. Anyway, that's the reason I don't like thought
experiments where they jump around too much.

Perhaps RX and TX taken together can be considered a system and then
wait for the system to stabilize.