Talk:Radiation resistance

The formulas here are not dimensionally correct. A factor of Z_0 is missing somewhere. The left side has units of ohm, the right side is dimensionless.

I don't know about a Zo, but you are clearly correct in that all the formulas are not dimensionally correct. I simply removed them all. Drkirkby (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still missing - Can somebody please put the missing Z_0 in there? 2001:8003:DD6B:7001:1012:A86E:EF77:2216 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement: "Thus the radiation resistance of an antenna is a good indicator of the strength of the electromagnetic field radiated by a transmitting antenna or being received by a receiving antenna, since its value is directly proportional." is dubious surely? The energy carried by the electromagnetic WAVE depends on the applied voltage (or current) and the radiation resistance. All the energy "dissipated" in the radiation resistance is radiated. 77.107.96.136 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was looking for[edit]

radiation resistance :anteena is a radiating element in which the power is rariated in to free space in the form of electro magnetic waves

                          power (p)=i square r

fact checking needed[edit]

This article has no citations, and I believe several things in it are wrong, for example:

The radiation resistance is determined by the geometry of the antenna, not by the materials of which it is made.

On the surface, this is true, because loss resistance is determined by the resistance caused by the materials the antenna is made of, and the rest goes to radiation resistance -- which means that while the geometry does play the major factor in radiation resistance, the resistance of the material also plays a part, making this statement false. --ssd (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor entry.[edit]

 This subject should be written by someone who KNOWS and KNOWS how to explain it.  MB69.176.56.1 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of DC resistance and AC impedance[edit]

This statement is false in two places: "The total of radiation resistance and loss resistance is the electrical resistance that can be easily measured (i.e., by an ohm meter)." (1) The sum of radiation resistance and loss resistance is the terminal *impedance*, which is normally measured where X (reactance) is zero - at resonance. (2) The terminal impedance can be measured a number of ways, (Scalar and Vector Network Analyzers, noise bridge etc) but a simple ohm meter is NOT one of them. ^[1] Audiomath (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)audiomath (N7CXI)[reply]

References

^ http://www.antenna-theory.com/measurements/impedance.php

Rewrite[edit]

Rewrote and expanded article to address some of the issues raised above and improve explanation to be more understandable by general readers, improve organization, add table of radiation resistance of common antennas, and add more sources --Chetvorno^TALK 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srjmas: I guess either formula could be used. Your formula using circumference does show the similarity of the loop to the dipole antenna. The reason I used the one based on the area A of the loop instead of circumference C is because I wanted to make it consistent with the next formula in the table, for a ferrite loop antenna. The only formula I could find for the radiation resistance of a ferrite antenna was based on the area. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.antenna-theory.com/measurements/impedance.php

[1]