Subject: Re: waveguide theory / Any RF comms folk on list?
From: Christopher E. Brown (cbrown@woods.net)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 17:05:49 AKDT
Prolly should mention this is in relation to operating far enough
above the cutoff as to keep loss fairly low while staying entirely
within TE11.
On Sun, 18 May 2003, Christopher E. Brown wrote:
>
> I seem to be running into a brick wall on finding useful info on some
> waveguide stuff, specificly proper calculation of Lg v.s.
> Lo, and what applies to where, ie spacing of a monopole coupler needs
> to be calculated against Lg, but does monopole length need to be
> calculated against guide wavelength, adjusted L for the conductor
> size used for the monopole, or some combination of the two.
>
> I would suspect monopole length should be calculated based on element
> size, and placement based on guide wavelength (seems sensible to me),
> but I keep seeing secondary claims both ways, and no real data. I
> would think that (if anything) one would have to further shorten the
> monopole (rather than lengthen it as would happen if you calced from
> Lg) due to extra capacitance from the enclosure.
>
>
> Then there are the folks arguing for a cone shaped monopole element as
> a better /wideband/ coupler. Given the fairly narrow band from cutoff
> to where secondary propagation modes kick in I fail to see how this
> would be any different than a uniform diameter element of equal
> surface area.
>
>
> Anyone with the clue I lack, please feel free to slap me down and or
> point me in the right direction. :)
>
>
-- I route, therefore you are.--------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Sun May 18 2003 - 17:03:44 AKDT