The text in red is like listening to Charlie Brown's parents. I can define the words, but haven't a tangible grasp on the concepts as they pertain to antennae. That's why I'm looking for some good remedial introductions on antennae. Then maybe I can ask some intelligent questions.
A VNA can eliminate most of the voodoo factor. Of course, looking good on the VNA doesn't mean that the antenna will work. But an antenna looking bad on the VNA most certainly won't Moveover, mismatched antennas can damage transmission circuitry.
VNAs are really expensive instruments, but luckily there are cheap models adequate for the needs of a radio amateur. For example, I've got a miniVNA Tiny from Mini Radio Solutions (miniradiosolutions.com) and it certainly works. It can measure from 1 MHz to 3 GHz.
There is a very good introductory book on antennas. Depending on how you read (or skim through it) you can learn a lot or at least develop some intuitive knwoledge of what might work and not when designing an antenna.
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Antenna-Handbook-5-e/dp/0071639586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458138978&sr=1-1&keywords=practical+antenna+handbook
So power is flowing into the wire and out into the world in the form of EM waves. While this is a fairly easy conceptual start, directly solving these fields from Maxwell's equations is somewhat challenging even with the simplest geometries, and effectively impossible for most real world situations. For this reason simplifications have been developed, which include viewing an antenna as a resonant circuit. An R an L and a C. Q is just another way of saying how small the R is.
The question. Although your current interest is in the antenna and antenna coupling, are you sure that is where the problem lies?
A simple check would be to directly connect the Rx and Tx through an appropriate resistive attenuator. Say 1000:1 or more to prevent overload in the receiver. Which brings up another possibility. At the distances you are describing it is possible your antennas are working too well, the receiver is saturating and therefore nothing is getting through.
The text in red is like listening to Charlie Brown's parents. I can define the words, but haven't a tangible grasp on the concepts as they pertain to antennae. That's why I'm looking for some good remedial introductions on antennae. Then maybe I can ask some intelligent questions.The text is indeed chaotic
Alright, let me try the intuitive path.
There are some key points you need to take into account. I think it would help to grasp some
First, the length of an antenna matters. An antenna must resonate in some way, and it depends on its dimensions and the frequency you wish to use.
Second, transmissions take a bandwidth necessarily greater than 0, which is why that paragraph you quote mentions "Q" and problems derived from antennas with narrow bandwidth.
For example: a voice transmission on HF (short wave) as used by hams takes about 2 KHz of bandwidth. So, if you are transmitting SSB on, say, 7.100 MHz you are actually radiating energy from 7100 to 7102 KHz. So, your antenna must work well not only for 7100 KHz, but for 7102 as well
If you are using the 433 MHz transmitters for digital data, you need some way to modulate the radio signal with the data. There are so many ways to do it. Morse code is the oldest, just switching the radio signal (called carrier) on and off. But it's not particularly well suited for digital data, so other methods are commonly used.
A simple to understand digital modulation method (which was mentioned in another post) is called "FSK", which uses two signals. One of them is a digital "1", the other one a digital "0". The frequency differences range usually from 170 Hz (typical in amateur radio transmissions) to almost 1 KHz.
Higher speeds require of course much more bandwidth. WiFi transmissions can require between 20 MHz and 160 MHz of bandwidth.
And how do you increase the bandwidth of a simple antenna?
Let's begin with the simple antenna you are considering, which is just a length of wire. That antenna can be considered unidimensional. And it's possible to make an antenna that resonates on different frequencies just connecting together different lengths of cable. Some hams do it in order to cover several HF bands. So, imagine you add together three different wires: you have three lengths availalable, right?
Now imagine that you make your antenna bidimensional. For example, rather than a simple wire you use a rectangular or triangular piece of copper sheet. What happens now? Your bidimensional object can now be seen as the sum of many unidimensional pieces, which is "a collection of different lengths".
I hope it serves as a starting point to somewhat grasp the intuitive aspect of it.
Hi donmr, in wire the propagation speed is 100% light speed, 3E8 m/s, if you have a dielectric around the wire like in coax then it slows down to maybe 75% depending on the dielectric.
You make a point I've not seen elsewhere. I've always gotten the impression that at some point, mismatched impedances will result in setting ones hair on fire.
So, bandwidth is the difference between the lower and upper frequency used. So that's FM, no? Does AM also have bandwidth? It doesn't seem to me that it would. My little 433MHz transmitter doesn't have the ability to transmit AM, right?
I might be wrong about my little transmitter now that I think about it. There are three terminals, besides the antenna. Vcc, Gr. and data. Is data doing more than turning the oscillator on and off? Is it transmitting a slightly different frequency when it's high or low?
Every signal that carries information has bandwidth, so AM also. There is unfortunately no such thing as a free lunch.
Until we know what your module is designed to do it's hard to tell what its abilities are, it maybe does AM but it probably is OOK (I know you looked that one up.)
Dit you try to connect the data terminal alternately to vcc and ground and monitor the receiver?
Is AM bandwidth still a difference between the high and low frequency? Or is it the difference between the high and low amplitude? I was thinking, based on this thread, that "bandwidth" is the method employed to transmit data... low end of the band would be LOW, the high end HIGH in digital terms. Or, are you saying bandwidth is an artifact? A property to be mitigated as much as possible?
OOK sounds about right from my understanding of my device, but I could be wrong.
I initially just followed the tutorial here: http://arduinobasics.blogspot.com/2014/06/433-mhz-rf-module-with-arduino-tutorial.html Part one, only. Though, he connected the receiver to an analog pin in the tutorial, I later tried something similar with the rx attached to a digital pin. Results were similar. I may need a pull down resistor or something too.
I suspect that your Rx/Tx pair is similar to the sparkfun devices discussed at the link below. They expect to see an ascii byte sent serially at a low rate on the digital data pin. With your Arduino code you are sending something which does not correspond to a valid serial data sequence (start bits, data, parity and stop bits) and thus gets lost in the shuffle. The encoder and decoder do the best they can with what is received from the Arduino, but as you have found the results are sort of random.
The fix would be to use the Arduino serial commands to send serial data to one of the output pins, which would then be hooked to the Tx. You could loop to send the same character continuously, particularly while you are debugging.
https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/RF/KLP_Walkthrough.pdf
Thanks for trying. I got the first part down to just past "Second." Then, it was like listening to someone with a heavy accent where you get every other word or so. lol. You made me realize one thing for sure... I've been conflating (in my mind) bandwidth with data bandwidth. Maybe they're related? I don't know.
Morse code is how I think of my little carrier. In my mind, it's the model I'm trying to use. Transmit, don't transmit. By varying the time of transmission against a clock at either end, time on, time off in terms of clock cycles, I could create my own comm protocol. I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways, but this was my first endeavor.
So, bandwidth is the difference between the lower and upper frequency used. So that's FM, no? Does AM also have bandwidth? It doesn't seem to me that it would. My little 433MHz transmitter doesn't have the ability to transmit AM, right?
I might be wrong about my little transmitter now that I think about it. There are three terminals, besides the antenna. Vcc, Gr. and data. Is data doing more than turning the oscillator on and off? Is it transmitting a slightly different frequency when it's high or low?
At $600 bucks , it looks like I will have to forego ever owning a VNA.
At $600 bucks , it looks like I will have to forego ever owning a VNA.
Not sure if this helps, TI sells this sub 1Ghz RF spectrum analyzer (Link), and for sure even I don't have any clue on RF thingy, but it helps me on tinkering at 433Mhz stuffs, like orienting the antenna or finding the sweet spot.
It created buying frenzy while ago when TI "discounted" it down to $25 (incl s/h) -> Here, too bad its back to $250.
I know what impedance is in terms of ac circuits, but when I look at my 6 inches of copper wire, all I see is 0 ohms resistance. How do I get to 50 from there? See why I need the basics. I don't even know enough to ask what I don't know?
It all depends upon your viewpoint---- replace your transmitter with a DMM on resistance range,& your piece of wire will read as "infinity".
Am I to understand you're saying only attach one lead of the DMM? Otherwise, I don't see how you get infinity.To RF,your length of wire when used as a part of an antenna possesses both inductance & capacitance,as well as
resistance.
At resonance ,the inductive & capacitive reactances cancel,leaving you with real resistance,& "Radiation Resistance"
This is not a real physical resistance,but looks like one to the external circuit.
Many people get "all bent out of shape" trying to get their heads around radiation resistance,but things which are not real resistors,but act like one are common in Electrical Theory.
One such is internal resistance in a Dry or a Wet Cell,where the internal chemical reaction decreases in activity as the cell becomes flat,looking to the external circuit like an increase in resistance.
Another is in an Electric motor .
Running unloaded,it looks like a high Inductive Reactance,& draws a small current,lagging the input voltage.
Apply a mechanical load,& the current increases,with the lag decreasing towards the resistive case.
It looks like a resistance in parallel with the motor inductance,but is really caused by the mechanical load.
In the same manner,the act of radiating electromagnetic waves from an antenna looks like a resistive loss,in phase with that caused by the real resistance,but is,of course,the whole object of the device.
A resonant 1/2 wavelength dipole is (in free space) about 70 Ohms,that of a1/4 wavelength vertical,half of that.
There is nothing magical about 50 Ohms,it is a standard coaxial cable impedance,& luckily,many practical antennas are closer to that value than the theoretical one.
50 Ohms has become the standard for RF interconnections,as it makes it a lot easier to measure signal levels,etc.
I am guilty of being unable to get my head around it. Unlike the examples you site, motor reactance, battery resistance etc, difficult as they are for a newbie to wrap their head around, those things don't exist outside of a circuit! Antennae require a whole new concept where one end of a wire is simply dangling free. The "resistance" or impedance of that antenna isn't quite so obvious. In fact, I'd venture that antennas would probably be an easier concept in which to get ones head around, if they were taught that before possessing conceptual knowledge of circuits.
What makes them so expensive? It's hard for me to justify even $250 bucks for something like a VNA when there are so many more essential things I should have... like a bench DMM, proper Bench PS... etc Now, $25 I can handle!
What makes them so expensive? It's hard for me to justify even $250 bucks for something like a VNA when there are so many more essential things I should have... like a bench DMM, proper Bench PS... etc Now, $25 I can handle!
I forgot. There is such thing as a $25 spectrum analyzer.
Have a look at this:
http://www.rtl-sdr.com