by
W.A. Davis
T. Yang
E.D. Caswell
W.L. Stutzman
The Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 302 Whittemore Hall
(0111), Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
*L3 Randtron Antenna Systems, 613 Global Way, Linthicum Heights, MD 21090
Submitted to:
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
IET Microwave Antennas & Propagation
Editor
July 2010
Keywords: Fundamental Limits, Q, Bandwidth, Storage Energy, Group Delay, Energy
Velocity
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
ABSTRACT
In this paper,  previous theories on the minimum radiation versus antenna size are Q
examined, basic assumptions reviewed, and an alternate formulation is presented. The
radiation limit varies with the amount of an estimated nonradiating energy, which is Q
directly related to the energy velocity. The classic approximate formula of Chu is found to U
be equivalent to using the group velocity for the energy velocity. Other previous approaches
implicitly assumed that the radiatedenergy travels in the radial direction at the speed of light
from the antenna sphere to the farfield region, which is not true. Based on this observation
of the incorrect energy velocity, a timedomain approach is used to derive the fundamental
limit on radiation versus electrical size of an antenna. A new form of radiation is   U Q
presented that provides a bound lower than all the previous results. The new limit, which is
just below the Chu limit, holds for any antenna size, not just electricallysmall antennas.
The new radiation limit provides antenna designers with a simple guide to estimate U
the minimum required antenna size for a given bandwidth and efficiency, thereby avoiding
the search for an impractical antenna.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
1. INTRODUCTION
Current wireless communication applications place extreme demands on efficient, compact
and wideband antennas. However, developments in antennas are evolutionary rather than
revolutionary. The laws of physics limit major breakthroughs in size reduction or
performance improvement, leading to the evolutionary development. Therefore, it is
important to understand radiation physics and the related sizeandperformance limits on
antennas.
Wheeler [1], in 1947, presented what most consider to be the foundation of modern day
approaches to the topic of fundamental limits on antenna size. A year later, Chu [2] presented
an approximate minimum radiationU (inversely proportional to fractional impedance
bandwidth) versus antenna size with a circuit model based on the wave impedance of the
spherical mode fields, leading to a widely accepted radiation formula. Later, Harrington [3] U
extended Chu's theory to include circularlypolarized antennas. Collin and Rothschild [4] and
Fante [5] derived the expressions for the radiation based on radiation energy traveling U
radially at the speed of light to evaluate enable the evaluation of the remaining nonradiated
energy. McLean [6] suggested a simpler method for evaluating the nonradiating energy,
based on the assumption that the energy terms with dependence are directly related to "<
#
radiated energy and all other terms relate to nonradiated energy. The end result obtained by
McLean is identical to Chu's exact formula and to that of Collin for the fundamental spherical
TM mode. An additional approach to estimating the was introduced by Grimes [7], who
!"
U
used a timedomain approach to the field solution. Grimes' approach had errors, but offers
some interesting concepts toward finding . U
The previous minimum radiation formulas for a given antenna size were based on an U
assumption that radiated energy travels radially outward at the speed of light. This speed
assumption is critical to an accurate estimate of the radiation velocity of the outward U. The
radiated energy is used to obtain a radiated energy estimate, that is then subtracted from the
total energy to estimate the nonradiating energy. Levis [8] and Rhodes [9] noted that the
radial speedoflight used by previous authors for the radiation process is a hypothesis. Levis'
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
and Rhodes' comments that the radial speed of the fields vary with distance, especially in the
near field of the antenna, as expected from the physical mechanisms of nearfield energy
storage. These comments are consistent with Hertz's observation in 1889 [10].
This paper presents results of analytical investigations into minimum radiation versus U
antenna size for the fundamental spherical TM mode of radiation. Previous theories on the
!"
size limits of antennas are examined, basic assumptions reviewed, and an alternate
formulation is presented with a new bound that is lower than previous results. A timedomain
approach is used to derive a fundamental limit on radiation . U
Relating the various fundamentallimit developments and presenting a new limit are the
major contributions of this paper. The emphasis of this paper is to clarify the assumptions of
the classic fundamentallimit papers, providing a basis for new work. It is hoped that
recognition of the potentially flawed assumptions in this basic problem may also provide
others insight into fundamental issues of other material and propagation problems that involve
nearfield interactions.
2. ASSUMPTIONS IN PREVIOUS ANTENNA SIZE LIMIT
THEORIES
The classical derivation of fundamental limits on an assumes that the antenna is antenna size
linear, timeinvariant, passive, and lossless [2, , 6]. The defines 4 a sphere of antenna sphere
minimum radius, , that encloses the antenna, as shown in Fig. 1. + The quality factor or
radiation for a steadystate, sinusoidallyexcited antenna, is defined as Q
U
>
[ > [ >
T
rad
=max[ [ ( ) ( )
/ 7
<+.
(1)
where and are the nonradiating electric and magnetic energy, respectively, is [ [ T
/ 7 <+.
the radiated power, and the " " denotes the peak value of the instantaneous timeaverage max
>
energy in time. The radiation is the ratio of the peak nonradiating energy to the time Q
average radiated power per period, which is approximately inversely proportional to the
instantaneous impedance bandwidth for high systems. Thus, a low antenna is often U Q
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
preferred because of its larger bandwidth, with the additional benefit of reducing the near
field energy that interacts and creates loss with the surrounding environment [11]. One can
also compute the radiation from the equivalent form of (1) as Q
U
# [ [
T
rad
=max
]
/ 7
<+.
(2)
where and are the timeaveraged, nonradiating electric and magnetic energy [ [
/ 7
respectively. Though a resonance condition is not required for this form, it simplifies the
explanation of the phenomenon in which the excess nonradiating energy is stored in the
source.
Evaluation of the radiated power for excited spherical modes is straightforward. The
problem becomes one of properly the nonradiated energy, since any radiating estimating
wave contains infinite total energy due to radiation. A method for extracting the nonradiating
energy from the total energy is required.
Chu [2] formed an equivalent RLC ladder network for each sphericalwave mode and the
radiation was computed from the stored energy in the inductors and capacitors of the U
equivalent network. However, this is still a long and difficult problem if many modes exist
and is subject to interpretation of what energy in these components constitute radiated versus
nonradiated energy. To simplify the problem, Chu considered an approximation using an
expansion of the impedance around the center frequency to estimate the nonradiating energy.
Chu computed the for each mode ( ), as well as the composite for multiplemode U U U
8
excitation He showed that an antenna which excites only the spherical TM mode has the
!"
lowest possible radiation of any linearly polarized antenna. U Chu's minimum radiation of Q
the spherical TM mode [2] is given by
!"
U
" # 5+
5+ " 5+
Chu
3
( )
( ) ( )
]
#
#
. (3)
It can be shown that Chu's approximation is equivalent to assuming the energy travels radially
outward at the group velocity defined in terms of the frequency variation of the phase
velocity [12].
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
Collin [4] and McLean [6] both presented alternate approaches to obtain Chu's "exact"
form of the minimum radiation for the spherical Q TM mode excitation. McLean computed
!"
the form of the average energy density due to the total fields and then subtracted his definition
of the radiating energy density , leaving the "non (defined by only the energy terms) "<
#
radiating" energy and leading to the radiation expression [6]: U
U U
" "
5+
5+
McLean Collin
U
Chu, exact
. (4)
( )
$
The result of Collin and Rothschild [4] was estimated by evaluating the radiated energy per
unit distance by simply dividing the average power by the speed of light. Collin used the
speed of light for the radial velocity of radiation without justification. McLean's use of the
"< leading terms of the fields to approximate the radiation process, often called the farfield
terms, leads to the same assumption of the radial energy velocity being the speed of light.
By definition, the energy velocity in a radial direction is directly related to the radiated
energy density. Therefore, the minimum radiation varies with the speed of energy Q
propagation. As pointed out, the assumption of the speedoflight energy velocity in a radial
direction was implicitly applied in the development of the classic fundamentallimit papers.
However, such a speed assumption neglects the transverse variation in the fields in the theta
direction, causing a net energyvelocity direction that is offset from the radial direction and
exceeds the speed of light for a radial velocity equal to the speed of light, a clear violation of
the laws of physics.
In fact, Hertz originally considered the radiated energy to travel at the speed of light. In
his 1889 paper [ ], Hertz pointed out that this speedoflight assumption was inconsistent 10
with physical observations and proceeded to obtain phase shifts that represent a dispersion of
the fields. He attempted to find a split of the electromagnetic fields into radiating and non
radiating terms, but concluded in the paper that there did not appear to be an explicit
separation. Levis [8] and Rhodes [9] also noted that the radial speedoflight used by previous
authors for the radiation process is a hypothesis. Thus, we need to search for a resolution to
this velocity issue to properly define the radiation by considering an excess phase shift
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
process and obtain a radial energy velocity that does not violate the basic principles of
physics.
We develop a new expression for the minimum that accounts for the excess phase U
rad
shift and velocities in the radiation and energy storage processes in a consistent manner. In the
next section, we demonstrate the effects of applying this excess phase shift to the radiation
problem and the impact on the nonradiated energy estimate, leading to a new fundamental
limit for the minimum . U
rad
3. TIMEDOMAIN DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM
RADIATIONU
As shown by Chu [2], an antenna exciting only the lowestorder sphericalwave mode has the
smallest radiation for singlemode radiation. The lowest order TM mode fields U spherical
01
are equivalent to the fields produced by a directed, ideal, electric dipole with current D
moment, . The fields of the timeharmonic, TM spherical mode with M.j D < M5.j % s t $ 1 ( ) ( )
!"
are given by
I < > <#
t
s
< 5< 5 <
> 5< > 5<
> 5<
s
< 5< 5 <
> 5< > 5<
( )
_ _
( ) ( )
_ _
( )
( ) ( )
(
) = =
)( =
) = =
cos sin cos
sin sin cos
cos
# #
# #
(5)
and
L < > > 5<
t s
< 5<
> 5<
( ) ( )
_ _
( )
9 =
) = sin sin
cos , (6)
where is the intrinsic impedance of space and is the propagation constant being the ( = 5  
speed of light. To simplify the notation, we will use in the following = > 5<
development. Previous developments of radiation assume that only the first terms of U I
)
and correspond to radiation with the appropriate amplitude decay in the far field 0 . L "<
9
As such, the radiated energy associated with these two terms would travel outward at the
speed of light as assumed by Collin and Rothschild in their development [4], but not properly
accounting for the transverse variation in . )
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
These electric and magnetic fields can be combined using the Poynting theorem and
integrated over a sphere to obtain the total timeharmonic power through the spherical surface
at given by <
T < > " " # #
% # # "
$ 5 < 5< 5 <
( )
_ _ _ _ _ _
(
1
# # $ $
cos sin . (7)
This form of the power expression does not clearly separate the radiated power from the
reactive power passing through the spherical surface enclosing the antenna, where the reactive
power represents the interchange of nonradiated energy between the source and exterior
region. The total power flow in the antenna radiation process as developed Schantz [13] is
shown in the timespace plot of Fig. 2. There is a clear separation of the nearfield energy
region within the radian sphere ( ) and the radiationdominated exterior region. 5< "
To mathematically identify the radiated and reactive power terms, we begin with basic
circuit concepts. Circuit concepts and basic power conservation require the radiated and
reactive powers of a linearly polarized antenna to be 90 out of phase in time, with the
reactive power lagging the radiated power to correspond to a net electric energy storage
beyond the surface for the TM mode. For linear polarization, the radiated power spherical
!"
term can be represented by a cosinesquared characteristic that may be expanded as
( ) " # cos . Determining the phase relationship that defines the needed form the total gives
timevarying power through the spherical surface as
1
T < > " # #
% "
$ 5 <
( ) ( ) ( )
_ _
( ' '
1
cos sin
$ $
(8)
where is the excess phase delay for the power flow defined by '
'
"
5<
tan
"
_ _
. (9)
1
A power of the form can always be written in the form [ [ " F # > G # > cos sin = =
" # > H # > cos sin ( ) ( ) = 0 = 0
where , , and . The sign must be determined from other H # F G " # #
_
( )
# #
FGH GFH
F G F G
cos sin 0 0
# # # #
factors based on physical requirements for the fields. For multiple polarizations ( and ) in a mode, it is I I
) 9
possible to combine the terms to have a constant and cosine with no additional dependance. To obtain the <
phase, one should apply expansion to each polarization separately. For the TM mode this last step is not
!"
necessary and the form developed may be applied.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
An alternate solution for the phase in (8) can be found, but that solution creates a phase
velocity that not only goes to infinity for finite , but also becomes negative for small . < 5<
Additionally, the sign of the reactive term is reversed, suggesting a net magnetic energy
storage outside the antenna sphere, inconsistent with the known excess electric energy in the
exterior region for the TM mode. Thus, we neglect this alternate form and retain the current
!"
definition. It is interesting to note that these two forms of the phase correspond to the
transverse magnetic and electric field phase references, respectively.
From (8), we see the resultant radiated power (first two terms) and reactive power (third
2
term) are out of phase at the spherical surface of radius , consistent with circuit concepts *! <
and power absorption processes. The timevarying radiated power is given by
T < > " #
%
$
rad
( ) [ [ ( ) ( '
1
cos (10)
with an average radiated power given as
T
%
$
rad
(
1
. (11)
The timevarying radiated power has a phase advance in the sense that 2 is found to decrease '
with distance. Such a phase advance implies a phase velocity greater than the speed of light
which would normally be related to an energy velocity less than the speed of light for a
guided wave system In fact, the antenna radiation problem in free space can be considered as .
wave propagation in a spherical waveguide [14].
As already mentioned, this phase shift is in conflict with the classic approach of
fundamental limits presented over the last 60 years, where only the term of the magnetic "<
and electric fields are considered to be the radiated terms. As mentioned, this assumption
gives a radiated energy that outward travels at the speed of light and ignores the transverse
variation of the fields and the related dispersion created by the interaction between field
terms. Hertz [10] presented a plot of the phase shift for the electric and magnetic fields,
2
Reactive power refers to the flow of the nearfield energy through the spherical boundary.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
clearly demonstrating dispersion of the fields as shown in Fig. 3. In fact, the electric field
shows a phase advance in the near distance.
It is convenient to write the fields of (5) and (6) in terms of the phase variable for time '
domain transmission as
I <
t
s
s
( ) ( )
_
_
_ _
( )
( )
< > #
< 5 <
5 < "
< 5 <
5<
5 < "
( '
)
( '
) '
cos
sin
sin sin
cos
# #
# #
# #
$ $
) (12)
and
L
t s
( ) ( )
_
< >
< 5<
5 < "
9
sin
cos
)
'
# #
. (13)
where . We now develop the energy terms in the system needed to define the . = > 5< U
The electric and magnetic energy densities are computed using (12) and (13) in the classic
energydensity equations
Y Y
" "
# #
/ 7
% . I I L L
t t t t
and (14)
Integrating these energy densities over a spherical volume between the radial surfaces of radii
+ , and ( in the limit) gives the total electric and magnetic energies
3
j ( '
1 ' '
=
'
/
# #
$ $
+
,
#
% 5< " # 5< # "
$ # #5< #5< 5 < " %
" #
#5 <
_
( ) ( )
( )
( )
_
( )
cos sin
sin
cos
( ) 15
[ #
% 5< " # 5< # "
$ # #5< #5< 5 < " %
7
# #
+
,
( '
1 ' '
=
_ _
( ) ( )
( )
( )
cos sin
sin ( ) 16
and the total energy
j ( ' '
1
=
5< " # #
% " " "
$ 5< #5 < #
_ _
( ) ( ) ( )
$ $
+
,
cos sin (17)
as found in Collin [15], where we have used the excess phase in this representation. '
3
The endpoints have been left as limits to be able to more easily see the limit as the outer radius goes to ,
infinity.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
One may determine the radiating energy from the energy velocity and timeaveraged
radiated power. This timeaveraged radiatingenergy density per unit radius can be written as
A
T
@
<+.
<+.
/
, ( ) 18
where is the timeaverage radiated power and is the energy velocity in the radial T @
rad /
direction. Once this radiated energy density is determined, the nonradiating energy is simply
obtained by subtracting the radiated energy from the total energy.
To determine the radial energy velocity, we can view the radiation process from a
geometric viewpoint with the radiated energy traveling radially outward with the excess phase
variation, and determine the associated phase velocity as a function of . Once the phase ', <
velocity is determined, the energy velocity can be estimated by a geometric projection onto an
effective direction of travel (actually there will be travel in both the directions). From the )
direction of total energy travel, the energy velocity in the direction can then be determined. <
This process gives the common geometric mean form of
@ 

@
/8/<1C
#
:2+=/
speed of light. (19)
This simple viewpoint is also consistent with an energy delay that allows the radiated fields to
be involved in the nearfield energy storage process and yet not violate the speedoflight
condition. It is generally accepted that as the phase velocity exceeds the speed of light, the
energy velocity must decrease below the speed of light. In a sense, the wave behavior of the
spherical TM mode is a form of guided wave with the radiated power traveling around the
!"
antenna sphere, , in the process of leaving the nearfield region, as suggested by Schantz 5+
[13].
The phase velocity of the radiated power is determined by tracking a constant phase point
of the outgoing radiated power as
= ' > 5< constant (20)
After found as taking a total derivative of the constant phase, the resultant phase velocity is
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
@ 
5 < "
5 <
:2+=/
# #
# #
(21)
For nondispersive problems, it is common to use the group velocity as an estimate of the
energy velocity. This group velocity, based on phase only, is obtained from (20) by
differentiating by = and then evaluating the velocity. The result is
@ 
" 5 <
$5 < 5 <
 5< "
 5< "
1<9?:
# #
#
# # % %
( )
_
( ) 22
Obviously there is an issue with small radii where the group velocity obtained from the phase
violates the speedoflight restriction.
Using product form of (19) relative to (21), we can obtain a useful velocity for the energy
given by
@ 
5 <
5 < "
/8/<1C
# #
# #
. (23)
Dividing this form into the timeaveraged power of (11) and integrating over the radius, we
find the timeaveraged, total radiating energy
j (
1
=
rad
5<
% "
$ 5<
_ _
+
,
. ( ) 24
The nonradiated energy is simply the difference of the average total energy and the average
radiated energy given by
j j
nonrad rad
j (
1
=
% "
$ #5 <
_ _
$ $
+
,
. 25 ( )
and is found to be purely electric. Thus the resulting minimum radiation for the spherical U
TM mode as is
!"
,
U
"
5 +
rad
$ $
. ( ) 26
The energy velocity of (23) gives rise to an excess time delay from the antenna sphere,
obtained by integrating the inverse of the velocity over the distance
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
7
=
Excess
.< 5<
,p
 5 < 5+
5 < " "
lim
_ _
_
[
1
. (27)
+
, # #
# #
+
,
This nonzero excess energy delay must be added to this distance delay of , neglected 5< in the
classical radiation papers assuming energy transport at the speed of light Q . Power is not
radiated directly in the radial direction as is typically assumed, but moves around the antenna
with a general outward path of travel. The concept of an energy velocity in the radial
direction being less than the speed of light is consistent with the phase velocity of the power
flow exceeding the speed of light, found as a result of the shift. '
An alternative method of estimating the nonradiating energy uses the reactivepower term
in the timevarying total power of (8). Based on Poynting's theorem, energy conservation
requires the time derivative of the energy in (17) be equal to the net power transfer into the
volume from (8) as
` % "
`> $ 5 <
# # T + > T , >
j 1
( ' '
_ _
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) cos sin
$ $
+
,
. (28)
The separation of radiated and nonradiated timevarying terms are clearly identified by way
of (28).
Once the reactive power term is identified we can obtain an estimate of the external non ,
radiated energy by integrating the reactive power in time. This integration leads to the form
with evaluated at the limits of and infinity as < +
j ( '
1
=
nonrad
E #
% "
$ #5 +
_ _
( )
$ $
+ +
cos , (29)
where is a constant of integration. We estimate as the minimum value the total E E ensuring
nonradiated energy is nonnegative over In this case we have , leading to time. E "#5 +
$ $
the minimum radiation by using the maximum of (29) in (1) to obtain Q
U
"
5 +
rad
$ $
( ) 30
which is identical to (26) based on the geometric relationship between the phase and energy
velocity for a guidedwave system.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
Summarizing the various estimates of and : @
Energy Energy
7
@


/8/<1C
5 <
5 < "
_
Collin McLean
Geometric Mean, as used here
(31) # #
# #
7
/B/== "
5+
!
_
Collin McLean
Geometric Mean, as used here
(32)
=
The corresponding are minimum U
rad
U
rad
_
_
" "
5+ 5 +
#5 + "
5 + 5 + "
"
5 +
$ $
# #
$ $ # #
$ $
Collin McLean,
Chu (approximate)
Geometric Mean, as used here
(33)
Chu (exact)
( )
It is helpful to graph the radiation versus for the various formulations. shows U 5+ Fig. 4
the minimum radiation from (33) for 100% efficiency from Chu [2], from U radiation
McLean [6], from Grimes [7], and the geometricmean form presented in this paper. The
results of this paper show a consistency in the approaches of other authors, but with a
modification to correct for excess energy delay. For a small , all curves converge to the 5+
same value of because the nearfield energy dominates the total energy. However, the "5 +
$ $
curves diverge as increases and the energy is a perturbation to the total 5+ nonradiating
stored energy, easily introducing errors with only minor differences in computational effort.
At , the commonly accepted size limit for small antennas, the ratio of the 5+ " electrically
Chu to McLean values is and the corresponding ratio for the new form U U !(&
Chu McLean
of (26) to McLean is . !&!
The reader is reminded that Chu's approximate result could be obtained by applying the
energy delay corresponding to the group velocity. However, the group velocity related to
Chu's approximate formulation exceeds the speed of light for . Therefore, the group 5+ "
velocity cannot properly represent the actual energy velocity. To address this limitation, the
geometric mean form for the energy velocity has been used in this paper to give a consistent
result throughout the ranges of . 5+
This section has demonstrated the process for determining the minimum nonradiating
energy. Previous papers used a variety of methods to separate the radiated energy from the
total energy causing difficulties in the estimate of the . In fact, the by ignoring excess delay, U
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
same result is obtained for all the development processes of Chu, McLean, and the authors if
each approach is modified to provide a consistent excess energy delay to obtain the radiated
energy. The foundation of all of these developments was the minimum of the U spherical
TM mode.
!"
4. CONCLUSIONS
A new fundamental limit for radiation has been developed, in other words U U "5 +
rad
$ $
for any size of antenna. A timedomain derivation of the fundamental limits was presented,
with a correction to the energy estimate of other authors. The correction nonradiating
provides a consistency between the previous derivations and results in a new lower limit.
Most authors of the classic fundamentallimit papers incorporated a radiated energy delay
corresponding to the speed of light in the radial direction, leading to an inconsistency with the
physical mechanisms of nearfield energy storage. There is a nonzero excess energy delay
that must be added to the distance delay. The power is not radiated directly in the radial
direction as is typically assumed, but moves around the antenna with a general outward path
of travel. The concept of an energy velocity in the radial direction being less than the speed
of light inside and around the radian sphere is consistent with the phase velocity of the power
flow exceeding the speed of light.
The fundamental limit provides a useful method of comparing antennas. That is, an
efficient antenna with a performance that comes closer to the theoretical limit is superior to
one farther above the curve from the perspective of bandwidth and efficiency. The key
contribution of this paper is the introduction of an alternative for evaluating the energy delay
in the radiating system, leading to a new fundamental limit for antennas applicable to
antennas of any size and providing additional insight into the radiation mechanisms in the
nearfield.
References
[1] Wheeler, H.A.: Fundamental limitations of small antennas, , Dec. 1947, , Proc. IEEE 69
pp. 14791484
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
[2] Chu, L.J.: Physical limitations on omnidirectional antennas, , Dec. 1948, J. Appl. Phys.
19, pp. 11631175
[3] Harrington, R.F.: Effect of antenna size on gain, bandwidth, and efficiency, J. Res. Nat.
Bur. Stand., Jan./Feb. 1960, , pp. 112 64D
[4] Collin, R.E., and Rothschild, S.: Evaluation of antenna Q, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., Jan. 1964, , pp. 2327 12
[5] Fante, R.L.: Quality factor of general ideal antennas, , IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.
Mar. 1969, , pp. 151155 17
[6] McLean, J.S.: A reexamination of the fundamental limits on the radiation Q of
electrically small antennas, , May 1996, , pp. 672 IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. 44
675
[7] Grimes, D.M., and Grimes, C.A.: Radiation of dipole generated fields, U Radio
Science, 1999, , pp. 281296 34
[8] Levis, C. A.: A reactance theorem for antennas, Proc. IRE, August 1957, 45, pp. 1128
1134
[9] Rhodes, D. R.: Observable stored energies of electromagnetic systems, J. The Franklin
Institute, September 1976, 302, pp. 225237
[ ] Hertz, H.R.: The Forces of Electric Oscillations, Treated According to Maxwell's 10
Theory , (Macmillan & Co, London, reprinted by The Cornell University Library, 1991)
[ ] Yang, T., Davis, W. A., Stutzman, W. L., and Huynh, M.C.: Cellular Phone and 11
Hearing Aid Interaction: An Antenna Solution , June , IEEE Antenna & Prop. Magazine
2008, 50, (3), pp. 5165
[ ] Davis, W.A., Yang, T., and Stutzman, W.L.: A New Fundamental Limit for Omni 12
directional Antennas , URSI 2007, CNC/USNC  North America Radio Science
Meeting, July 22nd  26th, 2007
[13] Schantz, H.G.: Electromagnetic Energy Around Hertzian Dipoles, IEEE Antenna &
Prop. Magazine, April 2001 (2), pp. 5062 , 43,
[14] ( Marcuvitz, N.: Waveguide Handbook McGrawHill, 1951)
[15] Collin, R.E.: Minimum of Small Antennas, U Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and
Applications, 1998, , pp, 136993. 12
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
Figure Captions:
Figure 1. The antenna and radian sphere view of an
electrically small antenna . ( ) +  1 #
Figure 2. The normalized amplitude of total power flow (shaded) direction
of total energy flow (arrows) in the time domain.
and
Figure 3. Phase delay and dispersion as found by Hertz [ ]. 10
Figure 4. Comparison of classical fundamental limits for . U
rad
Figure 1: The antenna and radian sphere view of an
electrically small antenna . ( ) +  1 #
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
Figure 2: and The normalized amplitude of total power flow (shaded) direction
of total energy flow (arrows) in the time domain.
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90
60
30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
kr
P
h
a
s
e
D
e
l
a
y
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
)
kr
E
(Hertz)
H
(Hertz)
Figure 3: Phase delay and dispersion as found by Hertz [ ]. 10
FundLimits.WXP  Dec 2010
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
10
5
10
10
10
15
log
10
(ka)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
Q
Q Comparison
McLean
Grimes
Chu
VA Tech
McLean [6]
Grimes [7]
Chu (approximate) [2]
VA Tech
Figure 4: Comparison of classical fundamental limits for . U
rad