How Efficient Are Radio Signals Over Distance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas1980
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Radio signals can be efficiently transmitted over distances, with minimal atmospheric absorption being a key factor. The inverse square law (1/D^2) is crucial for understanding signal strength reduction over distance, indicating that as distance increases, the received power decreases significantly. Antenna orientation and type, such as dipoles or horizontally polarized antennas, greatly influence signal reception, particularly if the transmitting and receiving antennas are not aligned in polarization. For optimal performance, antennas should ideally match in dimensions and polarization. Overall, the efficiency of radio signals is contingent on proper equipment setup and alignment.
Thomas1980
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hey there

I've been wondering just how efficient radiosignals are... If I were to place a transmitter broadcasting 1 Watt then what would I be receiving at say 10 meters away? Of course the antennas and frequencies are adjusted to near optimal with regards to dimensions, size and frequency in both reception and transmition, so I need a best case guess... Any radioamateurs or other wise people around? :-D

Best regards

Thomas Hansen
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Not much gets absorbed by the atmosphere, but the problem is keeping the signal coherent. It is possible to keep some radio signals highly coherent by shaping the transmitter in a parabola.
 
With my limited knowledge on radiowaves and radiosignals I can only help a little bit: I know that it is important that the antenna is 1/4 of the wavelength of the signal you're sending/ receiving because you will then have the optimal dimensions of the antennas and therefore have the most powerful signal reception. My question is, just how much of a 1 Watt signal will you receive 10 metres away, if all of the equipment is properly adjusted? ( that's around 30 feet IIRC)
I need it to be with ordinary antennas, Parabolic is not and option.
The question is so simple, and the answer straightforward, it is probably even posible to calculate it... I just don't know how! :-(
Hope this narrows it down a little bit.

Best regards

Thomas Hansen
 
Some HAM operators sent a radio signal from the US to New Zealand,
Try 1/D^2
the inverse square law; for all your needs (if it fits of-cource)
Nice Coder
 
Try 1/D^2 the inverse square law; for all your needs (if it fits of-cource)

Indeed, but if he's using an "ordinary antenna" (dipole?) orented say north-south, there won't be much signal going in the north-south direction.
 
"Indeed, but if he's using an "ordinary antenna" (dipole?) orented say north-south, there won't be much signal going in the north-south direction." ??
you may mean that if he is using a vertically polerised dipole, that if the transmitting antenna was horizontally polerised that he wouldn't get much signal?
The minimum signal comming fro mthe transmitting antenna (at 90 degrees) is only -3DB, so its not that much (how many op-amps only have a 3db gain?)
:smile:
De Nice Codre
 
you may mean that if he is using a vertically polerised dipole, that if the transmitting antenna was horizontally polerised that he wouldn't get much signal?
I was thinking of a horizontal fullwave dipole. But the point was that his question depends on what "ordinary antennas" means.
 
on long wavelengths horizontal dipoles are predominantly used, for short wavelengths yagi's, and vertically polerised dipoles are used.

It does not matter what his definition of an 'ordinary antenna' is, as long as they are using the same antenna, with the same polerisation and are not using directional antenna's pointing away from each other!
 
Back
Top