UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Powered By Google Custom Search Vintage Radio and TV Service Data

Go Back   UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum > Specific Vintage Equipment > Vintage Amateur and Military Radio

Notices

Vintage Amateur and Military Radio Amateur/military receivers and transmitters, morse, and any other related vintage comms equipment.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 18th Feb 2012, 5:13 pm   #61
John_BS
Octode
 
John_BS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wincanton, Somerset, UK.
Posts: 1,757
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
It wasn't long before I felt the need for beer and to get back to sorting out my spares.
Not surprised: that article must have been written by someone under some kind of influence .... .

John
John_BS is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 6:03 pm   #62
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Arrow Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Re: post #60: indeed John, but these terms 'resistance' 'impedance', 'voltage' etc. have been in use for many years. Could it be that since 'd.c.' came along (in the popular consumer sense) prior to 'a.c.' that the terms used within 'd.c. technology' were simply 'transposed' to a.c. circuits? (Although that did not seem apply to power considerations: watts, VAs and VArs). Whatever, the fact remains that we are stuck with them, so a careful and a qualifying description would seem to be needed whenever these terms are used. I shall have to start making an effort to use terms such as 'reactive ohms', 'impedance ohms' and 'real ohms', for example: hopefully I will be understood!

Al.

Last edited by Skywave; 18th Feb 2012 at 6:10 pm. Reason: Add previous post reference, line 1.
Skywave is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 6:56 pm   #63
timewave
Pentode
 
timewave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Clitheroe, Lancashire, UK.
Posts: 173
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

"If you can't understand the reasoning & logic . . . then it must be intuitively obvious!"

Al, I think the second part of your signature has to be applied for day to day discussion.Only when we get into deep theoretical debate do we have to be explicate in our meaning.
I've enjoyed this discussion and have sent links to our 2 trainee engineers.I've asked them to read this thread and highlight the points they don't understand.When we meet, I will try to assess their intuition with regard to this subject.Sometimes you know something is right, even though you can't explain the reason why!
Now I'm looking forward to the follow up discussion on low noise receiving antennae.

John
__________________
Old radio engineers never die, they just go intermit...mit...mit...mit...
timewave is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 7:53 pm   #64
G8HQP Dave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

I'm puzzled that people seem puzzled by resistance vs impedance. Impedance is a general term which includes both resistance and reactance. If the reactance happens to be zero, then you can still call the whole thing impedance.

Resistance can be slightly ambigious, because it could mean the resistive part of an impedance or it could signify that this particular impedance had zero reactance - the context should indicate which is meant.

Finally, some people get confused by the modulus of impedance |Z|=sqrt(R^2+X^2). 75ohms impedance does not mean |Z|=75, it means Z=75+j0.

Finally finally, resistance, reactance and impedance are all measured in ohms. Ohms is a scale, not a direction. A capacitance can have a reactance of -j40 ohms. The '-j' gives the direction, the 40 ohms gives the size.

Transmission line characteristic impedance is usually a pure resistance at RF frequencies. It is called characteristic impedance, not characteristic resistance, because at other frequencies (e.g. audio) that same cable will have a characteristic impedance which is not pure resistance. Even at RF it is only approximately a pure resistance, although it is a good approximation unless the cable is very lossy.
G8HQP Dave is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 8:00 pm   #65
John_BS
Octode
 
John_BS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wincanton, Somerset, UK.
Posts: 1,757
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Al, I think the second part of your signature has to be applied for day to day discussion.Only when we get into deep theoretical debate do we have to be explicate in our meaning.
Just my thoughts. I've tried not to get pulled into this thread, as to be honest, I couldn't really see what the problem was in the first place!

Now I've been compelled to pull out me old A level book (McKenzie) and he rather neatly states "The term (complex impedance equation, i.e. sqrt (R^2+jX^2)), analogous to resistance, is called the impedance of the circuit and is measured in ohms". This is the first impedance definition given in the chapter covering Alternating Current.

Electrical terms such as impedance are normally used in the engineering community on the tacit understanding that the recipient is "versed in the art", and similarly we don't normally add all the (required) caveats like "this is the ac impedance but only quoted to an accuracy of X at a frequency of Y and temperature of Z measured with a signal level of W...."

John
John_BS is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 8:34 pm   #66
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
I'm puzzled that people seem puzzled by resistance vs impedance.
I'm not puzzled in the use of those terms at all. I was commenting on the use of the units 'ohms' to measure each.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
Impedance is a general term which includes both resistance and reactance. If the reactance happens to be zero, then you can still call the whole thing impedance.
Which, in turn and to be consistent, implies that the word 'resistance' should be universally replaced by the word 'impedance'!

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
Resistance can be slightly ambiguous, because it could mean the resistive part of an impedance or it could signify that this particular impedance has zero reactance - the context should indicate which is meant.
'Should' being the operative word and 'slightly', in my opinion, is an understatement - hence this entire thread!

Al.
Skywave is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 8:49 pm   #67
kalee20
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,061
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
...some people get confused by the modulus of impedance |Z|=sqrt(R^2+X^2). 75ohms impedance does not mean |Z|=75, it means Z=75+j0.
Not generally. But in the context of aerials, feeder cables, yes, there's no reactive part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
Transmission line characteristic impedance is usually a pure resistance at RF frequencies ...at other frequencies (e.g. audio) that same cable will have a characteristic impedance which is not pure resistance...
Although, an ideal 75Ω coax cable will also be 75Ω at audio frequencies, in fact it will be 75Ω right down to DC. But to do a check measurement on your AVO, you'd need an infinitely long length (or at least a quarter of a million miles of it, to get a steady stable reading for a couple of seconds).
kalee20 is online now  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 9:20 pm   #68
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_BS View Post
Just my thoughts. I've tried not to get pulled into this thread, as to be honest, I couldn't really see what the problem was in the first place!
O.K.: then I'll try to make a simple summary.
The aerial connection of a receiver states "Input impedance 75 ohms".
This figure is produced by the dynamic resistance of the aerial input tuned circuit. So we have 'impedance' on one hand and 'resistance' on the other. Replace the phrase 'dynamic resistance' by 'dynamic impedance', (or replace 'aerial impedance' by 'aerial resistance') and the terms then become consistent. I hope that that helps.

Yes, you, everyone else and I know what is meant, but that is not the point.

Al.
Skywave is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2012, 9:27 pm   #69
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
Finally, some people get confused by the modulus of impedance |Z|=sqrt(R^2+X^2). 75ohms impedance does not mean |Z|=75, it means Z=75+j0.
Exactly! And that is the essential point I was trying to make earlier when I referred to the confusion that can arise when impedance and resistance are measured using the same units! And as I said then, such confusion does not arise in connection with 'power': watts, VAs and VArs.

Al.
Skywave is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2012, 2:39 pm   #70
G8HQP Dave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalee20
Although, an ideal 75Ω coax cable will also be 75Ω at audio frequencies, in fact it will be 75Ω right down to DC.
If by 'ideal' you mean lossless then that is true. Not true for any real cable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywave
Which, in turn and to be consistent, implies that the word 'resistance' should be universally replaced by the word 'impedance'!
No, because we still need a word for the real part of impedance.

A-level textbooks can be a good way to start, but not always reliable. I guess the problem the author had is that he can't assume that all A-level students understand complex numbers, as they only appear in Further Maths in most cases. That means he can't use the concept of modulus, as students think of that purely in terms of a sign change for negative numbers rather than its true meaning of magnitude.
G8HQP Dave is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2012, 4:05 pm   #71
kalee20
Dekatron
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,061
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G8HQP Dave View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalee20
Although, an ideal 75Ω coax cable will also be 75Ω at audio frequencies, in fact it will be 75Ω right down to DC.
If by 'ideal' you mean lossless then that is true. Not true for any real cable.
You can achieve this with a real cable - it doesn't have to be lossless. If the resistance of the (non-ideal) conductor is complemented by an 'insulator' which itself has leakage resistance, you can again get a constant 75Ω right down to DC. (Of course, this cable will be lossy).
kalee20 is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2012, 5:37 pm   #72
G8HQP Dave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Yes, of course, I forgot that. In practice it rarely happens, though.
G8HQP Dave is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2012, 12:51 am   #73
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Time for a review: I generated this thread with a number of questions to which I now have the answers. So to summarize: when a receiver states an aerial input impedance of 75 ohms (or whatever figure), that figure is determined by the so-called dynamic resistance of the first tuned circuit and any purely resistive components that shunt that dynamic resistance which follow that aerial input connection. Consequently, the aerial input impedance figure is not a pure resistance but an impedance where the reactive part of that impedance is zero. Over a given tuning range, that stated aerial input impedance will deviate from the nominal stated value, but will always remain as an impedance whose reactive component is zero. (This is simply because the input tuned circuit will always be tuned to resonance).

I have reached those conclusions based on my own measurements, (based on one receiver, an Eddystone 888A), calculations and comments received here from other members - and for the latter part, I would like to say "thank you" to all who have contributed to this thread.

So, subject to any comments from other members that clearly indicate that my above stated conclusions are in substantial error, there is nothing more I need to add to this thread.

Al.
Skywave is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2012, 12:07 pm   #74
G8HQP Dave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Minor corrections:
1. Only true if the receiver was designed for input matching rather than best noise figure, although this could be true for the majority of valve-era receivers.
2. Assumes perfect tracking, otherwise you get deviations in both resistance and reactance.
G8HQP Dave is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2012, 12:52 pm   #75
Skywave
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
Default Re: Receiver aerial input impedance: questions.

Yes Dave, I agree with your comment about tracking errors introducing a reactive component. It was sometime after I wrote that comment that I then realised that over-sight. What I overlooked was the simple fact that the receiver I did my measurements on had a relatively narrow bandwidth. I shall have to repeat my measurements on a number of other valve comms. receivers and study the results: should be quite revealing.
Thanks for your comments.

Al.
Skywave is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 3:24 pm.


All information and advice on this forum is subject to the WARNING AND DISCLAIMER located at https://www.vintage-radio.net/rules.html.
Failure to heed this warning may result in death or serious injury to yourself and/or others.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2002 - 2023, Paul Stenning.