element14 Community
element14 Community
    Register Log In
  • Site
  • Search
  • Log In Register
  • About Us
  • Community Hub
    Community Hub
    • What's New on element14
    • Feedback and Support
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Personal Blogs
    • Members Area
    • Achievement Levels
  • Learn
    Learn
    • Ask an Expert
    • eBooks
    • element14 presents
    • Learning Center
    • Tech Spotlight
    • STEM Academy
    • Webinars, Training and Events
    • Learning Groups
  • Technologies
    Technologies
    • 3D Printing
    • FPGA
    • Industrial Automation
    • Internet of Things
    • Power & Energy
    • Sensors
    • Technology Groups
  • Challenges & Projects
    Challenges & Projects
    • Design Challenges
    • element14 presents Projects
    • Project14
    • Arduino Projects
    • Raspberry Pi Projects
    • Project Groups
  • Products
    Products
    • Arduino
    • Avnet Boards Community
    • Dev Tools
    • Manufacturers
    • Multicomp Pro
    • Product Groups
    • Raspberry Pi
    • RoadTests & Reviews
  • Store
    Store
    • Visit Your Store
    • Choose another store...
      • Europe
      •  Austria (German)
      •  Belgium (Dutch, French)
      •  Bulgaria (Bulgarian)
      •  Czech Republic (Czech)
      •  Denmark (Danish)
      •  Estonia (Estonian)
      •  Finland (Finnish)
      •  France (French)
      •  Germany (German)
      •  Hungary (Hungarian)
      •  Ireland
      •  Israel
      •  Italy (Italian)
      •  Latvia (Latvian)
      •  
      •  Lithuania (Lithuanian)
      •  Netherlands (Dutch)
      •  Norway (Norwegian)
      •  Poland (Polish)
      •  Portugal (Portuguese)
      •  Romania (Romanian)
      •  Russia (Russian)
      •  Slovakia (Slovak)
      •  Slovenia (Slovenian)
      •  Spain (Spanish)
      •  Sweden (Swedish)
      •  Switzerland(German, French)
      •  Turkey (Turkish)
      •  United Kingdom
      • Asia Pacific
      •  Australia
      •  China
      •  Hong Kong
      •  India
      •  Korea (Korean)
      •  Malaysia
      •  New Zealand
      •  Philippines
      •  Singapore
      •  Taiwan
      •  Thailand (Thai)
      • Americas
      •  Brazil (Portuguese)
      •  Canada
      •  Mexico (Spanish)
      •  United States
      Can't find the country/region you're looking for? Visit our export site or find a local distributor.
  • Translate
  • Profile
  • Settings
RF Radio Frequency
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Project14
  • RF Radio Frequency
  • More
  • Cancel
RF Radio Frequency
Blog Antenna Radiation - Phase 3
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • Documents
  • Events
  • Polls
  • Files
  • Members
  • Mentions
  • Sub-Groups
  • Tags
  • More
  • Cancel
  • New
Join RF Radio Frequency to participate - click to join for free!
  • Share
  • More
  • Cancel
Group Actions
  • Group RSS
  • More
  • Cancel
Engagement
  • Author Author: kmikemoo
  • Date Created: 6 Jan 2020 5:13 AM Date Created
  • Views 7109 views
  • Likes 10 likes
  • Comments 18 comments
  • rfradiofrequencych
  • ham radio
Related
Recommended

Antenna Radiation - Phase 3

kmikemoo
kmikemoo
6 Jan 2020

Phase 3 of testing antenna radiation patterns.  The intro to this journey is Antenna Radiation.

Phase 3 will be to test a 2-element cardioid pattern.  This is formed when two 1/4 wave antennas are placed 1/4 wavelength apart and one is fed 90 degrees out of phase. I want to verify the single null to the rear.

 

The Amateur Extra amateur radio exam pool contains a question about this antenna pair and its unique radiation pattern - so, of course, I have to see if it's for real.  If it's what it's supposed to be, why isn't it common in Radio Direction Finding?

image

Based on the description in the test question, I built a two element, 1/4 wave dipole pair.  Based upon the testing done in Antenna Radiation - Phase 1, I do know that the antenna feed line will influence the radiation pattern.

I was able to use the automated transmitter (fox) and record the readings with my cellphone.  Three 30 second segments for each of the eight directions (0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, 315) and an additional 30 seconds back at 0/360 - just to be sure.

I did not get the pattern that I expected.  The graph is a top down view.

imageimage

The in-phase feed point is at the center, both of the dipole mounted in line with the vertical support and of the graph.  The element to the right in the picture is 1/4 wavelength (+/-) away, resulting in a 90 degree phase shift of the transmitted signal at (again) 1/4 wavelength spacing.  This is what creates the large lobe to the right on the graph as 0 / 360 is the direction of the second element.

This is an awesome directional pattern and the nulls were clean (zero) and very distinct.  Too bad this wasn't the pattern I was looking for.  So... where did I go wrong?

 

DI-pole.  Two.  While the elements are a quarter wavelength long, there are two.  This makes my dipole a half wavelength antenna.  My error was assuming that the lower elements would act as a ground plane - which they did not.  I will have to add more counterpoise elements to try to create a ground plane.  Maybe I can put something together with whip antennas...

I'm starting to see why this antenna array might not be the system of choice for radio direction finding.

 

After thinking about it, I decided to turn the dipole pair into two 1/4 wavelength ground plane antennas.  Surely, that will give me the pattern that the Amateur Radio exam question references.

image

Yeah... no.  Wrong again.  I got the same radiation pattern with the ground plane antennas as I did with the dipoles.  The magnitude of the readings did not change if the lower dipole elements were connected to the ground plane elements or not.

 

Given that this pattern is accepted as a universal constant in antenna propagation, I must be doing something wrong.  It must be that the phase shift is more than feeding the radiator element 90 degrees later.  If the arrangement I have is feeding the radiating elements in phase, I should have symmetrical lobes - at least according to my antenna books and all of the web sites that I've visited in the last few weeks.  I do not have symmetrical lobes.  Time to restore the antenna back to the twin dipole configuration and see about creating a 90 degree shift in the feed lines to the forward radiating element.

 

After some Internet research, it doesn't look like I'll be able to create that 90 degree phase shift without spending a bunch of money - and nothing would arrive in time anyway.  Argh!

 

So I shifted to "What CAN I do?"  Well... I can try simple.  A capacitor.  I only have one that can handle the voltages.  It does nothing.  Not surprised.

 

What if I shift the feed line of the second radiating element?  Sure, if I connect the top radiating element at the first feed point to the lower radiating element on the second feed point it is a 180 degree shift, but I should see SOME change in radiation pattern.  The pattern is a decent approximation.  I did three laps around the antenna confirming the peaks and valleys and rough readings.  At least the pattern changed.

image

Again, the main vertical support is also the center of the graph.  The second dipole is to the right along the zero axis.  The measurements are made at two meters from the vertical support.  The measured values are doubled to illustrate the pattern.  At least I know that the radiation pattern can be changed.

 

One of my Yagi antennas has a 1/2 wavelength balun.  What if I try something like that?  I returned the dual dipoles to their original configuration and connected a 1/4 wavelength piece of coax to the second radiating dipole such the the center conductor (connected to both upper radiating elements) terminated on the feed point to the lower element of the second dipole.  The coax shield went from the lower element on the second dipole to the upper element.  Think: Feed point, feed point, shorting loop.

image

I would say that the 1/4 wavelength "balun" effectively eliminated the second dipole because the resulting pattern looks a lot like the original single dipole from Phase 1.  Again, the measured values were doubled for illustrative purposes.  Neither variant was pegging the meter.

 

Unless I stumble across a way to give me a 90 degree phase shift in the next week, I will not be able to see the cardioid pattern in real life.  This exercise does demonstrate why this antenna setup is not used more often in Radio Direction Finding.  Time Difference Of Arrival is a simple enough circuit and uses the venerable 555 timer.  I was not able to find something quite so elegant for the 90 degree phase shift.  I'm not done looking... just bitter. Ha! Ha!

 

This was an awesome experience and I thank Element14 for selecting RF.  I would not have been motivated enough without the challenge.  I appreciate the opportunity to actually see phenomenon that I've only read about.  I will definitely play with this more once the weather improves.  I originally planned to scrap the dual dipoles after this, but after seeing how clean their radiating pattern is... I'm going to find a use for them.

73, Mike, WI9MMM

 

UPDATE:  8 JAN 2020

Huge thanks to Jon Clift ( jc2048 ) and Shabaz ( shabaz ) for their wisdom.  I ran some simulations using EZNEC, the free version of an antenna modelling program.  Given some allowance for the feed line within the radiation pattern, I would say that this is similar to what I measured.

   imageimage

The speed of the signal through the coax - despite the short physical length - caused my second dipole to radiate at about 135 degrees out of phase.  I am using RG8x coax with a velocity factor of about 0.8.  If I go for a 270 degree shift and account for the velocity factor, I should still get the cardioid pattern - only on the opposite side of the pair.  I am curious to see how much the radiation pattern is affected by the extra feed line within the field.

 

Running a few more simulations, I discovered that a 270 degree shift would result in high SWR but a 450 degree shift (1-1/4 wavelengths) should be fine.  BUT... the velocity factor range of my RG8x is 0.79 to 0.84 - according to the internet.  Being off by a few inches can skew the pattern.  Window line, similar to the antenna wire on our old televisions, has a velocity factor of 0.92 to 0.95 and just wire is supposed to have a velocity factor of 0.95.  0.05 difference in the RG8x.  0.05 difference of wire to open air.  I'll try just wire.

image

Yes, that is just two wires connecting the dipoles.  It would be the same thing as window line - only with a bit more spacing.  I did need to change out the radiating elements for longer elements to get the antenna's SWR to be its lowest in the 144MHz to 148MHz range.  I fully expected the unshielded connector to severely mess with the radiation pattern would it be that much more than the coax?  We'll find out.

image

WOW!  Is that an ugly pattern, or what?!  BUT... the null is definitely there and it is where it should be.  I have not figured out how to model how the feed line affects the pattern but from previous experiments, I know that it decreases the radiated signal strength around it.  On this experiment, the feed line only extended away from the feed point.  I needed to use it to "anchor" the antenna to keep it from thrashing about in the wind.  I also added some simple reference points.  The resulting null is fairly shallow due to the feed point phase difference being past 90 degrees (I estimate around 105 degrees) and, more significantly, RF being radiated from the feed line and the 1/4 wave connector.  I'm confident that I could get a deeper null if I shifted to coax, but not sufficient enough a null to be discernible for Radio Direction Finding.

 

Mission complete.  Return to base.  Clean up shop. image

  • Sign in to reply

Top Comments

  • jc2048
    jc2048 over 5 years ago in reply to jc2048 +5
    I'm wrong, I've got it back to front. [I did say I didn't know a lot about RF!] At 144Mhz, a quarter wave in air is 0.52 metres. A quarter wave in coax with a VF of 0.66 is only 0.3425 metres. So as you…
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago +5
    Hi Mike, If the two dipoles are being fed (they shouldn't be paralleled directly to the transmitter for the reason Jon mentioned), then it seems you're getting almost the expected result, so it is maybe…
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago in reply to jc2048 +5
    Hi Jon, Good question, it offers a suite of different antennas, but (as I understand - not sure - so please take these comments with a pinch of salt because I've not read the detail) I believe it uses…
Parents
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago

    Hi Mike,

     

    If the two dipoles are being fed (they shouldn't be paralleled directly to the transmitter for the reason Jon mentioned), then it seems you're getting almost the expected result, so it is maybe a good indication that your measurement method is functioning. I also think the reasons Jon mentions are why the lobes are asymmetrical, since they would be identical if the design and feed is symmetrical.

    MATLAB has antenna capability, and it's really neat (and surprisingly easy to use). It doesn't cost a huge amount for the home license (although still more than it should : (

    I tried your scenario (if everything was symmetric and fed as two separate antennas) - the result is two lobes, with ~ 3 dB difference between the maximum and minimum:

    image

    image

     

    I have been recently using MATLAB for an antenna design, but I have not completed it yet (it was supposed to be for the RF Project14, but I doubt it will be finished in time, since I still need to order a PCB.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +5 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • jc2048
    jc2048 over 5 years ago in reply to shabaz

    That looks very interesting to experiment with.

     

    Can it model a dielectric alongside or between the elements (so that you could design pcb aerials)?

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +3 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • jc2048
    jc2048 over 5 years ago in reply to shabaz

    That's a very comprehensive selection. Some on there I've never heard of.

     

    For that patch example, can you set the feed point position or is it merely telling you where the feed point is going to be? If you can arbitrarily set it, I can't see how it could not be field solving.

     

    A long time back, I downloaded and had a play with a trial version of one of the solver programs [can't remember which one]. It was really interesting, but they'd hobbled it so much that you couldn't do anything at all useful with it. One crucial limitation was that, though they let you look at the fields and the rf currents, you couldn't get a radiation pattern from it [so no sneaking a pcb antenna design without paying the thousands of dollars that it cost]. The number of pieces of copper and dielectric was very limited too. It was educational looking at very simple structures, like stripline on a board, and how they behaved, though.

     

    I'm still a little surprised that no-one has ever done an open-source e-m solver library that people could put their own modelling front-ends on.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +5 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago in reply to jc2048

    Hi Jon,

     

    It only allows variation within certain ranges, i.e. it generates an error message if I try to move the feed too much from the location it picked. I'm fairly sure it must be formula-based, and using the rules to block massive errors if the formula is attempted to be used outside bounds. Also, it's way too speedy hehe (near-instantaneous).

    I'm guessing (not sure) the commercial use-case is to approximately (yet rapidly) design it with the formulas, and then bring out the expensive tools.

    I think we by chance ended up trying the same bits of software, because what you describe sounds similar to what I experienced too.

    Also, I tried free NEC a year or two ago, for a few hours. I don't recall much but it had a weird entry system for defining individual elements, and I think it kind-of worked, but I didn't get very far. It is a shame in this area the great software is locked down and out of reach of individuals : ( It was clear that the free version of AN-SOF was using the same underlying engine, because its system had similarities, but with a front-end.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +4 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago in reply to jc2048

    Good news, I've found a solution for experimenting with EM simulation : )

    It turns out, it is possible with the Antenna toolbox, but also needs another one called PDE (partial differential equation) toolbox.

    The method I was using previously, was definitely formula-based.

    There's a web link that describes the process very well, and I tried it.

    First off, the antenna is sketched using shape primitives, and the shapes can be double-clicked on to enter precise co-ordinates.

    The screenshot here shows two rectangle primitives. There is a button to then mesh it. I thought I was working in mm, but it was actually in meters. This is using the PDE toolbox capability. The output array is exported.

    image

    Next, it is imported into an antenna toolbox app where by clicking on a couple of triangles the feed point is created.

    image

    And then I followed the URL to type the commands to find out the impedance, and to plot the pattern:

    image

    To double-check, I tried it using the formula-based method, screenshot below. The result is in a very similar ballpark! (I could not do it exactly, because the formula-based method won't allow me to make such a wide antenna for the formula that I selected (dipole), so some difference is expected anyway, also the fact that these are two different methods and won't give identical results. This was just a first experiment anyway, I didn't have time to investigate further.

    Anyway, in summary the method appears to be usable, so at some stage it will be fun to try designing a custom antenna with this for real.

    image

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +3 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • kmikemoo
    kmikemoo over 5 years ago in reply to shabaz

    shabaz  That is SUPER cool!!! imageimage  I was curious how one would model such an antenna. It's interesting that the plates give a similar radiation pattern to a wire antenna.  There must surely be an advantage of the plates over the wire.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +2 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago in reply to kmikemoo

    Hi Mike,

     

    Hehe I was impressed with these toolboxes, mind blown how straightforward it was to use them for this scenario.

    Regarding your question, I'm not sure, perhaps bandwidth increases (I only tried it at one frequency) or maybe the radiation pattern shape has changed slightly in any plane/axis (hard to tell with the 3D donut since I can only differentiate between a few shades of red : ),  I couldn't figure out how to get the 2D plots in this mode, so that needs more experimentation). Also it would be possible to write some code to plot at different frequencies automatically, or to automatically pick out the Max/Min dBi values for the selected range, to do such comparisons with thinner antennas. I didn't intend to produce such an antenna, the rectangles were just arbitrary initially to see how far I could get.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
Comment
  • shabaz
    shabaz over 5 years ago in reply to kmikemoo

    Hi Mike,

     

    Hehe I was impressed with these toolboxes, mind blown how straightforward it was to use them for this scenario.

    Regarding your question, I'm not sure, perhaps bandwidth increases (I only tried it at one frequency) or maybe the radiation pattern shape has changed slightly in any plane/axis (hard to tell with the 3D donut since I can only differentiate between a few shades of red : ),  I couldn't figure out how to get the 2D plots in this mode, so that needs more experimentation). Also it would be possible to write some code to plot at different frequencies automatically, or to automatically pick out the Max/Min dBi values for the selected range, to do such comparisons with thinner antennas. I didn't intend to produce such an antenna, the rectangles were just arbitrary initially to see how far I could get.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up +1 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • More
    • Cancel
Children
No Data
element14 Community

element14 is the first online community specifically for engineers. Connect with your peers and get expert answers to your questions.

  • Members
  • Learn
  • Technologies
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Products
  • Store
  • About Us
  • Feedback & Support
  • FAQs
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal and Copyright Notices
  • Sitemap
  • Cookies

An Avnet Company © 2025 Premier Farnell Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Premier Farnell Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no 00876412), registered office: Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds LS12 2NE.

ICP 备案号 10220084.

Follow element14

  • X
  • Facebook
  • linkedin
  • YouTube