Questions about superposition of two antennas

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ffjonas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antennas Superposition
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the experimental challenges faced when measuring the superposition of magnetic fields generated by two LF antennas operating at 125KHz. The user, Fan, initially observed discrepancies in magnetic field strength measurements when activating both antennas simultaneously compared to individual activations. Key insights include the importance of antenna orientation, specifically ensuring that the H fields are vertical to achieve optimal coupling with the measurement antenna. Suggestions for improvement included increasing the separation between antennas, adjusting their polarizations, and utilizing a more powerful transmitting antenna.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of LF antenna design and operation (125KHz)
  • Knowledge of magnetic field measurement techniques
  • Familiarity with vector addition in electromagnetic fields
  • Experience with antenna coupling and polarization effects
NEXT STEPS
  • Research techniques for optimizing antenna polarization for magnetic field measurements
  • Explore methods to reduce coupling between antennas, such as using attenuators
  • Investigate the effects of antenna orientation on radiation patterns
  • Learn about advanced magnetic field measurement tools and techniques
USEFUL FOR

Electromagnetic engineers, RF engineers, and researchers involved in antenna design and testing, particularly those focusing on LF antenna applications and magnetic field measurements.

  • #31
ffjonas said:
Thanks for the quick reply.

The two transmitting antennas are theoretically in phase. However, there is a very little difference in phase due to limitation of the hardware.

The receiver antenna does have 3D coils which are oriented orthogonally.

I'm talking about the phase of the field, not the antennas. Do you have a setup that can actually measure phase or are you limited to magnitude? Because if you are only measuring field magnitude and direction you can't expect to superposition to work unless you can figure out the relative phase difference between the fields at that point. But I am at a loss on how you could do that because the coupling of the antennas throws things off.

EDIT: Well I guess a first-order approximation of the phase difference would be to measure the relative path lengths of your measuring point between the two antennas. You could then calculate the relative phase shift roughly by the path difference but this neglects the secondary effects of the coupling between antennas. This requires of course identical antennas and that they be excited with signals that have the same phase.

EDIT EDIT: The above would work best if you are doing far-field measurements. For near-field measurements I do not think that it would work. Heck, I'm not quite sure if it would work well in the far-field since the calculations we do for far-field radiation still take into account the phase shift over distance between observation and source.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
B2bw
I'm glad someone else has picked up on the practicalities of this experiment. It needs some serious RF knowhow to get over some of the basic problems that seem to be arising.
The frequency he's operating at and the distances he's using would make phase / distance pretty small.
Also, if he doesn't operate with the transmit antennae having patterns that are symmetrical in the plane of the paper, he's got yet another imponderable.
There is also a question of the receive probe. Is it a real 'probe' or is it yet another (possible) resonant antenna?
I can't be sure how much of this that ffj is taking on board. I think it's harder than he realizes. Possibly his supervisor hasn't seen all the factors either. It wouldn't be the first time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K