How does the signal know where the cable ends and the antenna starts?











up vote
15
down vote

favorite
4












I know very little about antennas. I know, that for a certain frequency the antenna needs a certain lengths for good sending/receiving conditions.
Often the antenna is at the end of a cable. Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    15
    down vote

    favorite
    4












    I know very little about antennas. I know, that for a certain frequency the antenna needs a certain lengths for good sending/receiving conditions.
    Often the antenna is at the end of a cable. Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      15
      down vote

      favorite
      4









      up vote
      15
      down vote

      favorite
      4






      4





      I know very little about antennas. I know, that for a certain frequency the antenna needs a certain lengths for good sending/receiving conditions.
      Often the antenna is at the end of a cable. Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?










      share|improve this question













      I know very little about antennas. I know, that for a certain frequency the antenna needs a certain lengths for good sending/receiving conditions.
      Often the antenna is at the end of a cable. Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?







      antenna






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 6 at 19:38









      flux

      7613




      7613






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          22
          down vote













          An excellent question! Without diving too deep into the theory, let's start with a few basic terms.



          The "signal" that an antenna is receiving or transmitting is called an electromagnetic wave. This is exactly the same type of wave as light. It is just that the our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of frequencies that we call light. Electromagnetic waves that are lower in frequency behave exactly the same but we cannot see them. These lower frequencies are generally called RF (radio frequencies). Antennas are used to radiate (transmit) and receive electromagnetic RF signals.



          The cable or wire that goes between the antenna and a receiver or transmitter is called a transmission line. We use this term even if the cable is simply used for receiving purposes. A transmission line is specifically designed to not radiate an electromagnetic wave but only transport it from one end of the transmission line to the other. There are several types of construction that can meet this requirement but you are probably most familiar with coaxial cable - the same type of cable that is used for "cable TV".



          enter image description here



          In the case of the coaxial cable, the outer shield keeps the electromagnetic wave contained between the outer shield and the inner conductor. And as it does so, the electromagnetic wave moves from one end of the cable to the other.



          The device that generates the electromagnetic wave is called the source. This could be a transmitter or, when receiving a signal, it is the antenna. At the other end of the transmission line is the load. When transmitting, the antenna is considered the load and when receiving it is the receiver that is the load. By convention, the electromagnetic wave travels from the source end to the load end.



          So now armed with these few terms, we can restate your question as: Why isn't the transmission line included as part of the antenna when accounting for the length of the antenna?



          The simple answer is to realize that an antenna is specifically designed to receive or radiate electromagnetic waves. And you are correct that the dimensions of the antenna play a key role in its overall performance. But now contrast this to the transmission line that is specifically designed to not radiate electromagnetic waves.



          We can draw a comparison here to a garden hose and a sprinkler. The garden hose is specifically designed to transport the water from one end to the other without leaking any of it along the way (although I have a few hoses that seem not to have gotten that memo). The sprinkler, on the other hand, is specifically designed to "leak" water in a very specific pattern and volume.



          I hope that is the level of answer you were expecting. Feel free to use the comments to ask for any clarifications or additional depth.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 6




            Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
            – Thomas
            Nov 7 at 12:31


















          up vote
          8
          down vote













          Antennas are often resonant. Their physical dimensions are adjusted so standing waves develop at a particular frequency, like a bell rings at a particular tone.



          Feedlines are not usually resonant. Usually an engineer ensures the end of the feedline is terminated (by the antenna or the radio) with an impedance that matches the characteristic impedance of the feedline. This ensures that as a wavefront reaches the end of the feedline it's fully absorbed and none of it is reflected back. Since there are ideally no reflections of energy in this configuration, resonance can't happen.



          There are of course counterexamples. Non-resonant antennas exist in some applications, especially when the antenna must be physically small, or in receive-only applications where efficiency isn't as important. And transmission lines can be used to introduce controlled phase shifts into the signal, for example to make phased arrays or matching networks, and for this they must be cut to specific lengths that depend on frequency.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
            – Richard Fry
            Nov 7 at 14:36






          • 1




            Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
            – Phil Frost - W8II
            Nov 7 at 14:38






          • 2




            However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
            – Richard Fry
            Nov 7 at 15:15








          • 1




            Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
            – Richard Fry
            Nov 9 at 15:42








          • 1




            To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
            – Richard Fry
            Nov 9 at 16:17


















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          RF signals have no consciousness so they really don't know anything. All they can do is follow the laws of physics. When a signal is traveling in a transmission line conductor there is another signal of equal amplitude and opposite direction (phase) traveling in the other conductor close by. The RF fields from those two signals (almost) cancel so no (or very little) energy is lost to radiation from a transmission line. But suddenly those two signals split up and go off at right angles to each other at the dipole feedpoint so there is no other field close by to cancel the antenna's fields. Both signals are now free to radiate their fields as RF signals propagating through the air - and they do just that. When in the transmission line, the RF signals in each wire are traveling in opposite directions, i.e. are differential. But when one wire takes a 90 degree left hand turn and the other takes a 90 degree right hand turn, it results in the two currents flowing in the same direction, i.e. changes them to radiating antenna currents.






          share|improve this answer










          New contributor




          w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.

























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            "Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?" It is not so easy to point to the misunderstanding here. Surely the length of the feeder cable matters in some cases. In the first place, sensors for E-fields or H-fields are often described as antennas (loop antennas or whip antennas.) That is misleading because very small (in wavelength) antennas depend on using specific types of amplifiers to provide wideband coverage. For transmit they require VERY special low noise matching that makes the bandwidth VERY limited. Many antennas used by amateurs actually use the feed line as the radiator. If there is a common mode current, (the currents on the two conductors are not exactly equal) the cable is radiating. (Or usually more important, picking up interference.)
            An antenna cable that is perfectly well installed to not radiate at all might have a length that provides an impedance match to the antenna so cable length is sometimes important.
            I think the "simple" question does not have a simple answer. With a purist attitude, the transmission cable is "ideal" and then its length does not matter. The "ideal" antenna is matched to the cable at the frequency of operation and then the cable length does not matter. There is a confusion between field sensors (active devices) and antennas. In real life nothing is ideal. As I understand it, most operators have non-ideal antennas that suffer from pick-up of local E- or H- fields because of inadequate means to force common mode currents on feed cables to be zero.






            share|improve this answer




























              up vote
              -2
              down vote













              Coax cable in the top answer is what confines the signal to a properly matched antenna. Because in theory the atenna and the cable should be seen as a continous conduit and has the ability to influence its surroundings.



              Short Answer:



              Because we want it to.



              Long Answer:



              Contary to popular belief an insulator at some point becomes an conductor. Your cable if enough engery pumped through, looses its ability to contain and it becomes a coductor and adds to lenght of the atenna.



              The reason why i bring up impedence is that, lets say i have a diffrence of impedence between the antenna and the transmiter. The signal needs to have a path of least resistance to get to the "interface"



              The stuff that we want is not a direct radiation of said signal but rather the result of tha magnetic power that is unduced in the antenna that is the result of the action that is going inside the atenna, to put it in simple terms.



              The reason is that the coax is seen as a insolator is because, the radiation is not powerfull enough to induce a current in the coax past the alluminum jacket that is present in the cable.



              Mike is correct but a concept is missing is called inductance. You do need an inductor to shift the resonance of antenna, however,



              combined with the fact that the antenna by virtue of it inducting the magnetic feilds has the property of beimg able to translate the magetic feild by forcing the electrons to move and resonate with the incoming signal inside the receiver antenna.



              Impedance is needed to talk about in discusing an antenna design because in reality the signal does not see but rather It just moves along in a path with least resistance.



              In summary:



              The reason why the singal sees the antenna lenght rather than the cable combined with the antenna lenght,



              A. the cables ability to prevent it from being a conductor being that the sleaving keeps the signal from leaking and influencing the outside.



              B. it is impedance matched so the signal can influence the antenna with the least resistance.



              C. Antennas are designed that the concentration of energy is at that point.



              Going Back to mine and orginal Analogy



              Your cable is like a water hose and your water is the signal. at first when you dont put a nozzel on the end and turn on the water the water foutains, this is what a signal looks like.



              You add a nozzel which is your antenna you can now focus the singal to its destination.






              share|improve this answer























                Your Answer





                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                });
                });
                }, "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
                StackExchange.schematics.init();
                });
                }, "cicuitlab");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "520"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                 

                draft saved


                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f12198%2fhow-does-the-signal-know-where-the-cable-ends-and-the-antenna-starts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                22
                down vote













                An excellent question! Without diving too deep into the theory, let's start with a few basic terms.



                The "signal" that an antenna is receiving or transmitting is called an electromagnetic wave. This is exactly the same type of wave as light. It is just that the our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of frequencies that we call light. Electromagnetic waves that are lower in frequency behave exactly the same but we cannot see them. These lower frequencies are generally called RF (radio frequencies). Antennas are used to radiate (transmit) and receive electromagnetic RF signals.



                The cable or wire that goes between the antenna and a receiver or transmitter is called a transmission line. We use this term even if the cable is simply used for receiving purposes. A transmission line is specifically designed to not radiate an electromagnetic wave but only transport it from one end of the transmission line to the other. There are several types of construction that can meet this requirement but you are probably most familiar with coaxial cable - the same type of cable that is used for "cable TV".



                enter image description here



                In the case of the coaxial cable, the outer shield keeps the electromagnetic wave contained between the outer shield and the inner conductor. And as it does so, the electromagnetic wave moves from one end of the cable to the other.



                The device that generates the electromagnetic wave is called the source. This could be a transmitter or, when receiving a signal, it is the antenna. At the other end of the transmission line is the load. When transmitting, the antenna is considered the load and when receiving it is the receiver that is the load. By convention, the electromagnetic wave travels from the source end to the load end.



                So now armed with these few terms, we can restate your question as: Why isn't the transmission line included as part of the antenna when accounting for the length of the antenna?



                The simple answer is to realize that an antenna is specifically designed to receive or radiate electromagnetic waves. And you are correct that the dimensions of the antenna play a key role in its overall performance. But now contrast this to the transmission line that is specifically designed to not radiate electromagnetic waves.



                We can draw a comparison here to a garden hose and a sprinkler. The garden hose is specifically designed to transport the water from one end to the other without leaking any of it along the way (although I have a few hoses that seem not to have gotten that memo). The sprinkler, on the other hand, is specifically designed to "leak" water in a very specific pattern and volume.



                I hope that is the level of answer you were expecting. Feel free to use the comments to ask for any clarifications or additional depth.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 6




                  Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                  – Thomas
                  Nov 7 at 12:31















                up vote
                22
                down vote













                An excellent question! Without diving too deep into the theory, let's start with a few basic terms.



                The "signal" that an antenna is receiving or transmitting is called an electromagnetic wave. This is exactly the same type of wave as light. It is just that the our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of frequencies that we call light. Electromagnetic waves that are lower in frequency behave exactly the same but we cannot see them. These lower frequencies are generally called RF (radio frequencies). Antennas are used to radiate (transmit) and receive electromagnetic RF signals.



                The cable or wire that goes between the antenna and a receiver or transmitter is called a transmission line. We use this term even if the cable is simply used for receiving purposes. A transmission line is specifically designed to not radiate an electromagnetic wave but only transport it from one end of the transmission line to the other. There are several types of construction that can meet this requirement but you are probably most familiar with coaxial cable - the same type of cable that is used for "cable TV".



                enter image description here



                In the case of the coaxial cable, the outer shield keeps the electromagnetic wave contained between the outer shield and the inner conductor. And as it does so, the electromagnetic wave moves from one end of the cable to the other.



                The device that generates the electromagnetic wave is called the source. This could be a transmitter or, when receiving a signal, it is the antenna. At the other end of the transmission line is the load. When transmitting, the antenna is considered the load and when receiving it is the receiver that is the load. By convention, the electromagnetic wave travels from the source end to the load end.



                So now armed with these few terms, we can restate your question as: Why isn't the transmission line included as part of the antenna when accounting for the length of the antenna?



                The simple answer is to realize that an antenna is specifically designed to receive or radiate electromagnetic waves. And you are correct that the dimensions of the antenna play a key role in its overall performance. But now contrast this to the transmission line that is specifically designed to not radiate electromagnetic waves.



                We can draw a comparison here to a garden hose and a sprinkler. The garden hose is specifically designed to transport the water from one end to the other without leaking any of it along the way (although I have a few hoses that seem not to have gotten that memo). The sprinkler, on the other hand, is specifically designed to "leak" water in a very specific pattern and volume.



                I hope that is the level of answer you were expecting. Feel free to use the comments to ask for any clarifications or additional depth.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 6




                  Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                  – Thomas
                  Nov 7 at 12:31













                up vote
                22
                down vote










                up vote
                22
                down vote









                An excellent question! Without diving too deep into the theory, let's start with a few basic terms.



                The "signal" that an antenna is receiving or transmitting is called an electromagnetic wave. This is exactly the same type of wave as light. It is just that the our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of frequencies that we call light. Electromagnetic waves that are lower in frequency behave exactly the same but we cannot see them. These lower frequencies are generally called RF (radio frequencies). Antennas are used to radiate (transmit) and receive electromagnetic RF signals.



                The cable or wire that goes between the antenna and a receiver or transmitter is called a transmission line. We use this term even if the cable is simply used for receiving purposes. A transmission line is specifically designed to not radiate an electromagnetic wave but only transport it from one end of the transmission line to the other. There are several types of construction that can meet this requirement but you are probably most familiar with coaxial cable - the same type of cable that is used for "cable TV".



                enter image description here



                In the case of the coaxial cable, the outer shield keeps the electromagnetic wave contained between the outer shield and the inner conductor. And as it does so, the electromagnetic wave moves from one end of the cable to the other.



                The device that generates the electromagnetic wave is called the source. This could be a transmitter or, when receiving a signal, it is the antenna. At the other end of the transmission line is the load. When transmitting, the antenna is considered the load and when receiving it is the receiver that is the load. By convention, the electromagnetic wave travels from the source end to the load end.



                So now armed with these few terms, we can restate your question as: Why isn't the transmission line included as part of the antenna when accounting for the length of the antenna?



                The simple answer is to realize that an antenna is specifically designed to receive or radiate electromagnetic waves. And you are correct that the dimensions of the antenna play a key role in its overall performance. But now contrast this to the transmission line that is specifically designed to not radiate electromagnetic waves.



                We can draw a comparison here to a garden hose and a sprinkler. The garden hose is specifically designed to transport the water from one end to the other without leaking any of it along the way (although I have a few hoses that seem not to have gotten that memo). The sprinkler, on the other hand, is specifically designed to "leak" water in a very specific pattern and volume.



                I hope that is the level of answer you were expecting. Feel free to use the comments to ask for any clarifications or additional depth.






                share|improve this answer














                An excellent question! Without diving too deep into the theory, let's start with a few basic terms.



                The "signal" that an antenna is receiving or transmitting is called an electromagnetic wave. This is exactly the same type of wave as light. It is just that the our eyes are sensitive to a narrow range of frequencies that we call light. Electromagnetic waves that are lower in frequency behave exactly the same but we cannot see them. These lower frequencies are generally called RF (radio frequencies). Antennas are used to radiate (transmit) and receive electromagnetic RF signals.



                The cable or wire that goes between the antenna and a receiver or transmitter is called a transmission line. We use this term even if the cable is simply used for receiving purposes. A transmission line is specifically designed to not radiate an electromagnetic wave but only transport it from one end of the transmission line to the other. There are several types of construction that can meet this requirement but you are probably most familiar with coaxial cable - the same type of cable that is used for "cable TV".



                enter image description here



                In the case of the coaxial cable, the outer shield keeps the electromagnetic wave contained between the outer shield and the inner conductor. And as it does so, the electromagnetic wave moves from one end of the cable to the other.



                The device that generates the electromagnetic wave is called the source. This could be a transmitter or, when receiving a signal, it is the antenna. At the other end of the transmission line is the load. When transmitting, the antenna is considered the load and when receiving it is the receiver that is the load. By convention, the electromagnetic wave travels from the source end to the load end.



                So now armed with these few terms, we can restate your question as: Why isn't the transmission line included as part of the antenna when accounting for the length of the antenna?



                The simple answer is to realize that an antenna is specifically designed to receive or radiate electromagnetic waves. And you are correct that the dimensions of the antenna play a key role in its overall performance. But now contrast this to the transmission line that is specifically designed to not radiate electromagnetic waves.



                We can draw a comparison here to a garden hose and a sprinkler. The garden hose is specifically designed to transport the water from one end to the other without leaking any of it along the way (although I have a few hoses that seem not to have gotten that memo). The sprinkler, on the other hand, is specifically designed to "leak" water in a very specific pattern and volume.



                I hope that is the level of answer you were expecting. Feel free to use the comments to ask for any clarifications or additional depth.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Nov 7 at 12:34

























                answered Nov 6 at 20:32









                Glenn W9IQ

                12.8k1741




                12.8k1741








                • 6




                  Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                  – Thomas
                  Nov 7 at 12:31














                • 6




                  Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                  – Thomas
                  Nov 7 at 12:31








                6




                6




                Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                – Thomas
                Nov 7 at 12:31




                Love the garden hose / sprinkler analogy, it made things so clear!
                – Thomas
                Nov 7 at 12:31










                up vote
                8
                down vote













                Antennas are often resonant. Their physical dimensions are adjusted so standing waves develop at a particular frequency, like a bell rings at a particular tone.



                Feedlines are not usually resonant. Usually an engineer ensures the end of the feedline is terminated (by the antenna or the radio) with an impedance that matches the characteristic impedance of the feedline. This ensures that as a wavefront reaches the end of the feedline it's fully absorbed and none of it is reflected back. Since there are ideally no reflections of energy in this configuration, resonance can't happen.



                There are of course counterexamples. Non-resonant antennas exist in some applications, especially when the antenna must be physically small, or in receive-only applications where efficiency isn't as important. And transmission lines can be used to introduce controlled phase shifts into the signal, for example to make phased arrays or matching networks, and for this they must be cut to specific lengths that depend on frequency.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 1




                  Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 14:36






                • 1




                  Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                  – Phil Frost - W8II
                  Nov 7 at 14:38






                • 2




                  However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 15:15








                • 1




                  Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 15:42








                • 1




                  To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 16:17















                up vote
                8
                down vote













                Antennas are often resonant. Their physical dimensions are adjusted so standing waves develop at a particular frequency, like a bell rings at a particular tone.



                Feedlines are not usually resonant. Usually an engineer ensures the end of the feedline is terminated (by the antenna or the radio) with an impedance that matches the characteristic impedance of the feedline. This ensures that as a wavefront reaches the end of the feedline it's fully absorbed and none of it is reflected back. Since there are ideally no reflections of energy in this configuration, resonance can't happen.



                There are of course counterexamples. Non-resonant antennas exist in some applications, especially when the antenna must be physically small, or in receive-only applications where efficiency isn't as important. And transmission lines can be used to introduce controlled phase shifts into the signal, for example to make phased arrays or matching networks, and for this they must be cut to specific lengths that depend on frequency.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 1




                  Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 14:36






                • 1




                  Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                  – Phil Frost - W8II
                  Nov 7 at 14:38






                • 2




                  However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 15:15








                • 1




                  Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 15:42








                • 1




                  To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 16:17













                up vote
                8
                down vote










                up vote
                8
                down vote









                Antennas are often resonant. Their physical dimensions are adjusted so standing waves develop at a particular frequency, like a bell rings at a particular tone.



                Feedlines are not usually resonant. Usually an engineer ensures the end of the feedline is terminated (by the antenna or the radio) with an impedance that matches the characteristic impedance of the feedline. This ensures that as a wavefront reaches the end of the feedline it's fully absorbed and none of it is reflected back. Since there are ideally no reflections of energy in this configuration, resonance can't happen.



                There are of course counterexamples. Non-resonant antennas exist in some applications, especially when the antenna must be physically small, or in receive-only applications where efficiency isn't as important. And transmission lines can be used to introduce controlled phase shifts into the signal, for example to make phased arrays or matching networks, and for this they must be cut to specific lengths that depend on frequency.






                share|improve this answer














                Antennas are often resonant. Their physical dimensions are adjusted so standing waves develop at a particular frequency, like a bell rings at a particular tone.



                Feedlines are not usually resonant. Usually an engineer ensures the end of the feedline is terminated (by the antenna or the radio) with an impedance that matches the characteristic impedance of the feedline. This ensures that as a wavefront reaches the end of the feedline it's fully absorbed and none of it is reflected back. Since there are ideally no reflections of energy in this configuration, resonance can't happen.



                There are of course counterexamples. Non-resonant antennas exist in some applications, especially when the antenna must be physically small, or in receive-only applications where efficiency isn't as important. And transmission lines can be used to introduce controlled phase shifts into the signal, for example to make phased arrays or matching networks, and for this they must be cut to specific lengths that depend on frequency.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Nov 6 at 21:10









                Mike Waters

                2,6572533




                2,6572533










                answered Nov 6 at 20:14









                Phil Frost - W8II

                26.6k146114




                26.6k146114








                • 1




                  Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 14:36






                • 1




                  Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                  – Phil Frost - W8II
                  Nov 7 at 14:38






                • 2




                  However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 15:15








                • 1




                  Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 15:42








                • 1




                  To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 16:17














                • 1




                  Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 14:36






                • 1




                  Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                  – Phil Frost - W8II
                  Nov 7 at 14:38






                • 2




                  However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 7 at 15:15








                • 1




                  Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 15:42








                • 1




                  To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                  – Richard Fry
                  Nov 9 at 16:17








                1




                1




                Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 7 at 14:36




                Just to note that a non-resonant antenna will radiate almost all of the r-f energy that flows along its conductor(s) - as effectively as a resonant antenna.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 7 at 14:36




                1




                1




                Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                – Phil Frost - W8II
                Nov 7 at 14:38




                Theoretically, assuming no losses, sure. In practice engineers make antennas resonant if there isn't a reason to do otherwise since this minimizes reactive power, and associated losses in real systems.
                – Phil Frost - W8II
                Nov 7 at 14:38




                2




                2




                However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 7 at 15:15






                However it can be more practical to make the antenna system resonant, rather than its radiating conductor(s).
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 7 at 15:15






                1




                1




                Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 9 at 15:42






                Few, if any AM broadcast towers are naturally resonant (j = 0 ohms), with the real term of their input Z = 50 ohms. Almost always they need/use a network at their feedpoint to match them to the Zo of the transmission line connected there.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 9 at 15:42






                1




                1




                To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 9 at 16:17




                To elaborate, a naturally resonant (j0) AM broadcast radiator of slightly less than 90 degrees height might have a radiation resistance of about 33 ohms. Without a matching network, it would need to be driven against an r-f ground connection having a resistance of 17 ohms in order to present a 1:1 SWR match to a 50 ohm line connected to its input terminals. No broadcast station would tolerate that loss in system radiation efficiency, and in almost all cases the FCC would not even permit or license it.
                – Richard Fry
                Nov 9 at 16:17










                up vote
                4
                down vote













                RF signals have no consciousness so they really don't know anything. All they can do is follow the laws of physics. When a signal is traveling in a transmission line conductor there is another signal of equal amplitude and opposite direction (phase) traveling in the other conductor close by. The RF fields from those two signals (almost) cancel so no (or very little) energy is lost to radiation from a transmission line. But suddenly those two signals split up and go off at right angles to each other at the dipole feedpoint so there is no other field close by to cancel the antenna's fields. Both signals are now free to radiate their fields as RF signals propagating through the air - and they do just that. When in the transmission line, the RF signals in each wire are traveling in opposite directions, i.e. are differential. But when one wire takes a 90 degree left hand turn and the other takes a 90 degree right hand turn, it results in the two currents flowing in the same direction, i.e. changes them to radiating antenna currents.






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  RF signals have no consciousness so they really don't know anything. All they can do is follow the laws of physics. When a signal is traveling in a transmission line conductor there is another signal of equal amplitude and opposite direction (phase) traveling in the other conductor close by. The RF fields from those two signals (almost) cancel so no (or very little) energy is lost to radiation from a transmission line. But suddenly those two signals split up and go off at right angles to each other at the dipole feedpoint so there is no other field close by to cancel the antenna's fields. Both signals are now free to radiate their fields as RF signals propagating through the air - and they do just that. When in the transmission line, the RF signals in each wire are traveling in opposite directions, i.e. are differential. But when one wire takes a 90 degree left hand turn and the other takes a 90 degree right hand turn, it results in the two currents flowing in the same direction, i.e. changes them to radiating antenna currents.






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote









                    RF signals have no consciousness so they really don't know anything. All they can do is follow the laws of physics. When a signal is traveling in a transmission line conductor there is another signal of equal amplitude and opposite direction (phase) traveling in the other conductor close by. The RF fields from those two signals (almost) cancel so no (or very little) energy is lost to radiation from a transmission line. But suddenly those two signals split up and go off at right angles to each other at the dipole feedpoint so there is no other field close by to cancel the antenna's fields. Both signals are now free to radiate their fields as RF signals propagating through the air - and they do just that. When in the transmission line, the RF signals in each wire are traveling in opposite directions, i.e. are differential. But when one wire takes a 90 degree left hand turn and the other takes a 90 degree right hand turn, it results in the two currents flowing in the same direction, i.e. changes them to radiating antenna currents.






                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    RF signals have no consciousness so they really don't know anything. All they can do is follow the laws of physics. When a signal is traveling in a transmission line conductor there is another signal of equal amplitude and opposite direction (phase) traveling in the other conductor close by. The RF fields from those two signals (almost) cancel so no (or very little) energy is lost to radiation from a transmission line. But suddenly those two signals split up and go off at right angles to each other at the dipole feedpoint so there is no other field close by to cancel the antenna's fields. Both signals are now free to radiate their fields as RF signals propagating through the air - and they do just that. When in the transmission line, the RF signals in each wire are traveling in opposite directions, i.e. are differential. But when one wire takes a 90 degree left hand turn and the other takes a 90 degree right hand turn, it results in the two currents flowing in the same direction, i.e. changes them to radiating antenna currents.







                    share|improve this answer










                    New contributor




                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited yesterday





















                    New contributor




                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                    answered Nov 11 at 23:34









                    w5dxp

                    1864




                    1864




                    New contributor




                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                    New contributor





                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                    w5dxp is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        "Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?" It is not so easy to point to the misunderstanding here. Surely the length of the feeder cable matters in some cases. In the first place, sensors for E-fields or H-fields are often described as antennas (loop antennas or whip antennas.) That is misleading because very small (in wavelength) antennas depend on using specific types of amplifiers to provide wideband coverage. For transmit they require VERY special low noise matching that makes the bandwidth VERY limited. Many antennas used by amateurs actually use the feed line as the radiator. If there is a common mode current, (the currents on the two conductors are not exactly equal) the cable is radiating. (Or usually more important, picking up interference.)
                        An antenna cable that is perfectly well installed to not radiate at all might have a length that provides an impedance match to the antenna so cable length is sometimes important.
                        I think the "simple" question does not have a simple answer. With a purist attitude, the transmission cable is "ideal" and then its length does not matter. The "ideal" antenna is matched to the cable at the frequency of operation and then the cable length does not matter. There is a confusion between field sensors (active devices) and antennas. In real life nothing is ideal. As I understand it, most operators have non-ideal antennas that suffer from pick-up of local E- or H- fields because of inadequate means to force common mode currents on feed cables to be zero.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          "Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?" It is not so easy to point to the misunderstanding here. Surely the length of the feeder cable matters in some cases. In the first place, sensors for E-fields or H-fields are often described as antennas (loop antennas or whip antennas.) That is misleading because very small (in wavelength) antennas depend on using specific types of amplifiers to provide wideband coverage. For transmit they require VERY special low noise matching that makes the bandwidth VERY limited. Many antennas used by amateurs actually use the feed line as the radiator. If there is a common mode current, (the currents on the two conductors are not exactly equal) the cable is radiating. (Or usually more important, picking up interference.)
                          An antenna cable that is perfectly well installed to not radiate at all might have a length that provides an impedance match to the antenna so cable length is sometimes important.
                          I think the "simple" question does not have a simple answer. With a purist attitude, the transmission cable is "ideal" and then its length does not matter. The "ideal" antenna is matched to the cable at the frequency of operation and then the cable length does not matter. There is a confusion between field sensors (active devices) and antennas. In real life nothing is ideal. As I understand it, most operators have non-ideal antennas that suffer from pick-up of local E- or H- fields because of inadequate means to force common mode currents on feed cables to be zero.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            "Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?" It is not so easy to point to the misunderstanding here. Surely the length of the feeder cable matters in some cases. In the first place, sensors for E-fields or H-fields are often described as antennas (loop antennas or whip antennas.) That is misleading because very small (in wavelength) antennas depend on using specific types of amplifiers to provide wideband coverage. For transmit they require VERY special low noise matching that makes the bandwidth VERY limited. Many antennas used by amateurs actually use the feed line as the radiator. If there is a common mode current, (the currents on the two conductors are not exactly equal) the cable is radiating. (Or usually more important, picking up interference.)
                            An antenna cable that is perfectly well installed to not radiate at all might have a length that provides an impedance match to the antenna so cable length is sometimes important.
                            I think the "simple" question does not have a simple answer. With a purist attitude, the transmission cable is "ideal" and then its length does not matter. The "ideal" antenna is matched to the cable at the frequency of operation and then the cable length does not matter. There is a confusion between field sensors (active devices) and antennas. In real life nothing is ideal. As I understand it, most operators have non-ideal antennas that suffer from pick-up of local E- or H- fields because of inadequate means to force common mode currents on feed cables to be zero.






                            share|improve this answer












                            "Why doesn't the length of the cable count in addition to the length of the antenna?" It is not so easy to point to the misunderstanding here. Surely the length of the feeder cable matters in some cases. In the first place, sensors for E-fields or H-fields are often described as antennas (loop antennas or whip antennas.) That is misleading because very small (in wavelength) antennas depend on using specific types of amplifiers to provide wideband coverage. For transmit they require VERY special low noise matching that makes the bandwidth VERY limited. Many antennas used by amateurs actually use the feed line as the radiator. If there is a common mode current, (the currents on the two conductors are not exactly equal) the cable is radiating. (Or usually more important, picking up interference.)
                            An antenna cable that is perfectly well installed to not radiate at all might have a length that provides an impedance match to the antenna so cable length is sometimes important.
                            I think the "simple" question does not have a simple answer. With a purist attitude, the transmission cable is "ideal" and then its length does not matter. The "ideal" antenna is matched to the cable at the frequency of operation and then the cable length does not matter. There is a confusion between field sensors (active devices) and antennas. In real life nothing is ideal. As I understand it, most operators have non-ideal antennas that suffer from pick-up of local E- or H- fields because of inadequate means to force common mode currents on feed cables to be zero.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered yesterday









                            sm5bsz

                            45113




                            45113






















                                up vote
                                -2
                                down vote













                                Coax cable in the top answer is what confines the signal to a properly matched antenna. Because in theory the atenna and the cable should be seen as a continous conduit and has the ability to influence its surroundings.



                                Short Answer:



                                Because we want it to.



                                Long Answer:



                                Contary to popular belief an insulator at some point becomes an conductor. Your cable if enough engery pumped through, looses its ability to contain and it becomes a coductor and adds to lenght of the atenna.



                                The reason why i bring up impedence is that, lets say i have a diffrence of impedence between the antenna and the transmiter. The signal needs to have a path of least resistance to get to the "interface"



                                The stuff that we want is not a direct radiation of said signal but rather the result of tha magnetic power that is unduced in the antenna that is the result of the action that is going inside the atenna, to put it in simple terms.



                                The reason is that the coax is seen as a insolator is because, the radiation is not powerfull enough to induce a current in the coax past the alluminum jacket that is present in the cable.



                                Mike is correct but a concept is missing is called inductance. You do need an inductor to shift the resonance of antenna, however,



                                combined with the fact that the antenna by virtue of it inducting the magnetic feilds has the property of beimg able to translate the magetic feild by forcing the electrons to move and resonate with the incoming signal inside the receiver antenna.



                                Impedance is needed to talk about in discusing an antenna design because in reality the signal does not see but rather It just moves along in a path with least resistance.



                                In summary:



                                The reason why the singal sees the antenna lenght rather than the cable combined with the antenna lenght,



                                A. the cables ability to prevent it from being a conductor being that the sleaving keeps the signal from leaking and influencing the outside.



                                B. it is impedance matched so the signal can influence the antenna with the least resistance.



                                C. Antennas are designed that the concentration of energy is at that point.



                                Going Back to mine and orginal Analogy



                                Your cable is like a water hose and your water is the signal. at first when you dont put a nozzel on the end and turn on the water the water foutains, this is what a signal looks like.



                                You add a nozzel which is your antenna you can now focus the singal to its destination.






                                share|improve this answer



























                                  up vote
                                  -2
                                  down vote













                                  Coax cable in the top answer is what confines the signal to a properly matched antenna. Because in theory the atenna and the cable should be seen as a continous conduit and has the ability to influence its surroundings.



                                  Short Answer:



                                  Because we want it to.



                                  Long Answer:



                                  Contary to popular belief an insulator at some point becomes an conductor. Your cable if enough engery pumped through, looses its ability to contain and it becomes a coductor and adds to lenght of the atenna.



                                  The reason why i bring up impedence is that, lets say i have a diffrence of impedence between the antenna and the transmiter. The signal needs to have a path of least resistance to get to the "interface"



                                  The stuff that we want is not a direct radiation of said signal but rather the result of tha magnetic power that is unduced in the antenna that is the result of the action that is going inside the atenna, to put it in simple terms.



                                  The reason is that the coax is seen as a insolator is because, the radiation is not powerfull enough to induce a current in the coax past the alluminum jacket that is present in the cable.



                                  Mike is correct but a concept is missing is called inductance. You do need an inductor to shift the resonance of antenna, however,



                                  combined with the fact that the antenna by virtue of it inducting the magnetic feilds has the property of beimg able to translate the magetic feild by forcing the electrons to move and resonate with the incoming signal inside the receiver antenna.



                                  Impedance is needed to talk about in discusing an antenna design because in reality the signal does not see but rather It just moves along in a path with least resistance.



                                  In summary:



                                  The reason why the singal sees the antenna lenght rather than the cable combined with the antenna lenght,



                                  A. the cables ability to prevent it from being a conductor being that the sleaving keeps the signal from leaking and influencing the outside.



                                  B. it is impedance matched so the signal can influence the antenna with the least resistance.



                                  C. Antennas are designed that the concentration of energy is at that point.



                                  Going Back to mine and orginal Analogy



                                  Your cable is like a water hose and your water is the signal. at first when you dont put a nozzel on the end and turn on the water the water foutains, this is what a signal looks like.



                                  You add a nozzel which is your antenna you can now focus the singal to its destination.






                                  share|improve this answer

























                                    up vote
                                    -2
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    -2
                                    down vote









                                    Coax cable in the top answer is what confines the signal to a properly matched antenna. Because in theory the atenna and the cable should be seen as a continous conduit and has the ability to influence its surroundings.



                                    Short Answer:



                                    Because we want it to.



                                    Long Answer:



                                    Contary to popular belief an insulator at some point becomes an conductor. Your cable if enough engery pumped through, looses its ability to contain and it becomes a coductor and adds to lenght of the atenna.



                                    The reason why i bring up impedence is that, lets say i have a diffrence of impedence between the antenna and the transmiter. The signal needs to have a path of least resistance to get to the "interface"



                                    The stuff that we want is not a direct radiation of said signal but rather the result of tha magnetic power that is unduced in the antenna that is the result of the action that is going inside the atenna, to put it in simple terms.



                                    The reason is that the coax is seen as a insolator is because, the radiation is not powerfull enough to induce a current in the coax past the alluminum jacket that is present in the cable.



                                    Mike is correct but a concept is missing is called inductance. You do need an inductor to shift the resonance of antenna, however,



                                    combined with the fact that the antenna by virtue of it inducting the magnetic feilds has the property of beimg able to translate the magetic feild by forcing the electrons to move and resonate with the incoming signal inside the receiver antenna.



                                    Impedance is needed to talk about in discusing an antenna design because in reality the signal does not see but rather It just moves along in a path with least resistance.



                                    In summary:



                                    The reason why the singal sees the antenna lenght rather than the cable combined with the antenna lenght,



                                    A. the cables ability to prevent it from being a conductor being that the sleaving keeps the signal from leaking and influencing the outside.



                                    B. it is impedance matched so the signal can influence the antenna with the least resistance.



                                    C. Antennas are designed that the concentration of energy is at that point.



                                    Going Back to mine and orginal Analogy



                                    Your cable is like a water hose and your water is the signal. at first when you dont put a nozzel on the end and turn on the water the water foutains, this is what a signal looks like.



                                    You add a nozzel which is your antenna you can now focus the singal to its destination.






                                    share|improve this answer














                                    Coax cable in the top answer is what confines the signal to a properly matched antenna. Because in theory the atenna and the cable should be seen as a continous conduit and has the ability to influence its surroundings.



                                    Short Answer:



                                    Because we want it to.



                                    Long Answer:



                                    Contary to popular belief an insulator at some point becomes an conductor. Your cable if enough engery pumped through, looses its ability to contain and it becomes a coductor and adds to lenght of the atenna.



                                    The reason why i bring up impedence is that, lets say i have a diffrence of impedence between the antenna and the transmiter. The signal needs to have a path of least resistance to get to the "interface"



                                    The stuff that we want is not a direct radiation of said signal but rather the result of tha magnetic power that is unduced in the antenna that is the result of the action that is going inside the atenna, to put it in simple terms.



                                    The reason is that the coax is seen as a insolator is because, the radiation is not powerfull enough to induce a current in the coax past the alluminum jacket that is present in the cable.



                                    Mike is correct but a concept is missing is called inductance. You do need an inductor to shift the resonance of antenna, however,



                                    combined with the fact that the antenna by virtue of it inducting the magnetic feilds has the property of beimg able to translate the magetic feild by forcing the electrons to move and resonate with the incoming signal inside the receiver antenna.



                                    Impedance is needed to talk about in discusing an antenna design because in reality the signal does not see but rather It just moves along in a path with least resistance.



                                    In summary:



                                    The reason why the singal sees the antenna lenght rather than the cable combined with the antenna lenght,



                                    A. the cables ability to prevent it from being a conductor being that the sleaving keeps the signal from leaking and influencing the outside.



                                    B. it is impedance matched so the signal can influence the antenna with the least resistance.



                                    C. Antennas are designed that the concentration of energy is at that point.



                                    Going Back to mine and orginal Analogy



                                    Your cable is like a water hose and your water is the signal. at first when you dont put a nozzel on the end and turn on the water the water foutains, this is what a signal looks like.



                                    You add a nozzel which is your antenna you can now focus the singal to its destination.







                                    share|improve this answer














                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer








                                    edited Nov 12 at 19:59

























                                    answered Nov 6 at 20:31









                                    Ben Madison

                                    405




                                    405






























                                         

                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded



















































                                         


                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f12198%2fhow-does-the-signal-know-where-the-cable-ends-and-the-antenna-starts%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                        Tangent Lines Diagram Along Smooth Curve

                                        Yusuf al-Mu'taman ibn Hud

                                        Zucchini