Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 27
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
Matthew T. (35)
Amrit Deshmukh (60)


Next birthdays
05/05 Alexandre (32)
05/07 a.gutzeit (63)
05/08 wpk5008 (34)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

Antenna Theory: Twisting the antennas of a Transceiver together

Move Thread LAN_403
deef
Fri Jun 01 2007, 04:33AM Print
deef Registered Member #207 Joined: Sat Feb 18 2006, 05:14PM
Location:
Posts: 45
Hello,

My antenna theory is a little weak, and I was unable to find any information on this subject. Lets see if one of you guys can help me out.

Basically I'm working with a transceiver that has two antennas (Obviously, one for TX the other for RX). Right now, I'm running two wires (where antennas would normally be attached) into a communications multiplexer that is allowing me to have one physical antenna. This multiplexer is controlled via standard I/O pins.

What I want to do is cut out the multiplexer out and have two physical antennas on my board. BUT, to keep things so neat and tidy, I was wondering if I could twist the antenna wires together so that they were in a vertical orientation, but like a tight double helix. Right now, I'm using small-guage magnet wire as an antenna, so they would be electrically isolated from each other at all times. That's an obvious must. BUT, I'm wondering about the implications of doing something like this from an EM standpoint.

My gut is telling me it wouldn't be an issue, as the "send" and "receive" portions of the transceiver are never on at the time time, but I was just wondering if anyone had any experience on the subject. Right now, my communications multiplexer is giving me -3dB loss anyways, so there is a little bit of a margin.

Any ideas?
deef
Back to top
Steve Conner
Fri Jun 01 2007, 08:32AM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
If you twist the antennas together you will probably destroy the front end of your receiver by coupling most of the transmit power into it. What you're trying to do is usually done with a T/R switch made from PIN diodes. I think you can get high speed T/R switches on a chip now, for the Wi-fi market.
Back to top
deef
Sat Jun 02 2007, 06:09PM
deef Registered Member #207 Joined: Sat Feb 18 2006, 05:14PM
Location:
Posts: 45
Thanks for your response, Steve! You're a big help! I knew someone around here would have the knowledge to lend me a hand. I appreciate it.

Let me just ask a couple questions to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Even though these transceivers (TRF6903) are half-duplex, and the transmit portion of the chip is essentially "off" while in receive mode, it's still possible to damage the chip as you mentioned? The design guide for the transceiver suggested the possibility of shorting out the two antennas directly, and placing one antenna on the shorted junction. Obviously for cost savings (you save an antenna). They said this method was possible so long as dc-blocking capacitors were also in place for both the transmit and receive tuning circuits.

I was more worried about degradation of RF performance (eg: loss of radiated power). The thought of damaging the chip straight-out makes sense, although it didn't really pass through my mind as I asked the question.

Again, if damage as you described is possible, I imagine there would be a proximity where it would be "safe" to run two, separate antennas which would be untwisted and physically far from each other on the board. My gut tells me this has something to do with near fields and far fields.

Thanks again,
deef
Back to top
Steve Conner
Sat Jun 02 2007, 08:39PM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Well, if the application note for the transceiver suggests just connecting the transmit and receive antenna ports together like you said, that implies that it already has the necessary circuitry inside to protect the front end during transmission, so you can go ahead and do this, or twist the antennas, without fear.

In fact, twisting the two antennas together should be electrically equivalent to using a single antenna with the DC block capacitors like the design guide suggested.

But one thing I'm wondering: if the design guide said you could short the two antenna ports together, why did you go to the trouble of hooking up a "communications multiplexer" (whatever that is) in the first place?
Back to top
deef
Sat Jun 02 2007, 11:58PM
deef Registered Member #207 Joined: Sat Feb 18 2006, 05:14PM
Location:
Posts: 45
In fact, twisting the two antennas together should be electrically equivalent to using a single antenna with the DC block capacitors like the design guide suggested.


Ahh, excellent point! Again, I never even thought of that but it makes perfect sense. So long as I'm using insulated wired it would be equivalent.

Why did I bother hooking up the multiplexer to begin with? I was worried about the distance I'd be able to transmit and receive signals. So, I did the original design using as much efficiency as possible. A different tuning circuit is suggested for transmit and receive. The multiplexer lets you take advantage of using separate tuning/matching circuits, but one common antenna. A little bit of gain is sacrificed by connecting the RX and TX circuitry, with shared tuning, and running a single antenna. But, I've learned there will still be plenty of range for my needs.

I'd consider my issue: solved.

Thanks again,
deef
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.