RADIATION RESISTANCE

Radiation resistance is that part of an antenna's feedpoint resistance that is caused by

the radiation of electromagnetic waves from the antenna, as opposed to loss resistance
(also called ohmic resistance) which generally causes the antenna to heat up. The total
of radiation resistance and loss resistance is the electrical resistance that can be easily
measured (i.e., by an ohm meter).
The radiation resistance is determined by the geometry of the antenna, where loss
resistance is primarily determined by the materials of which it is made. While the energy
lost by ohmic resistance is converted to heat, the energy lost by radiation resistance is
converted to electromagnetic radiation.
Radiation resistance is caused by the radiation reaction of the conduction electrons in
the antenna.
When electrons are accelerated, as occurs when an AC electrical field is impressed on
an antenna, they will radiate electromagnetic waves. These waves carry energy that is
taken from the electrons. The loss of energy of the electrons appears as an effective
resistance to the movement of the electrons, analogous to the ohmic resistance caused
by scattering of the electrons in the crystal lattice of the metallic conductor.
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.
Radiation Resistance
Radiation resistance is both the most useful and the least useful antenna-related term.
Radiation resistance can easily be misused and rendered useless. This is because
radiation resistance has multiple poorly-defined meanings. When a term has several
nebulous meanings or uses, it is only natural that misuse or mixing of terms appear.
Lack of a firm, single, well-accepted, definition allows the term "radiation resistance" to
slip from one definition into another. This often results in well-intentioned, but totally
erroneous conclusions, that seem to follow accurate, logical, thought!
Common Uses
There are two commonly-used "correct" meanings of radiation resistance, and one
totally incorrect use. The "correct" uses are:
1. The resistive part of an antenna's feedpoint impedance that is created solely by
radiation from the antenna

2. The total power radiated in all directions divided by the square of maximum net
(or effective) current causing the radiation
Neither of the above definitions include loss resistances of any type! The moment loss
resistance is included, we have a third commonly-used (but totally useless) definition.
This definition, which includes losses, could be considered "incorrect" because it
includes resistances that have nothing to do with radiation. The misused, or nearly
useless, definition is:
3. The simple real (or resistive) part of an antenna's feedpoint impedance, wherever
that feedpoint is in relationship to the radiating current maximum.
The correct name for number 3's "radiation resistance" is actually the antenna feedpoint
resistance. It is not radiation resistance at all!
Of the above good or useful definitions, the first definition is most commonly abused
through mistake. The second definition is an IRE definition (albeit a good one that never
caught on). In every case, the second good definition, which is also the least commonly
used, provides the most direct and useful answer.
eff % = 100 * Rrad/(Rrad + Rloss) .
In order to use the formula above, all losses must be normalized to the same point
where radiation resistance is taken. Without doing that, the efficiency formula above
does not work!
Radiation Resistance, most common mistake
Many people use the first definition of radiation resistance, the portion of the terminal
resistance of the feedpoint responsible for radiation. Unfortunately they fail to normalize
ground losses to the same point where the radiation resistance is taken! We can not
use a formula that is based on everything being normalized to one point and not
normalize to that point for every term in the formula! There is no change in efficiency
when the NET radiator current remains the same and when net ground current remains
the same.
Even if used properly, in many cases, losses are external to the antenna system. These
losses appear exactly as if they are due to radiation. For example, a Marconi vertical
can be -5 dB down from theoretical due to losses out in the Fresnel region, or from local
induction field dissipation, and not appear to have an abnormally high feed resistance.
To know efficiency and field strength, we really must measure field strength!
Using The Second Definition

If we use the second IRE definition of radiation resistance, where the effective current
causing radiation is compared to power radiated, we find nothing changes. A folded
dipole or monopole has the same radiation resistance as a regular dipole or monopole
the same size, and a small loop has the same radiation resistance regardless of turns.

Increasing Radiation Resistance

Radiation resistance, at least under the useful IRE definition, can be defined by the
following formula:

which would translate to:

Where He is the effective height center of accelerating charges that cause radiation. In
other words, He is the effective height, expressed in fractions of a wavelength, of the
distributed common-mode current in the structure.
Non-uniform Current
Radiation resistance is purely a function of the effective current distribution and height
of the radiator, and is limited by height (spatial length)! Current throughout the antenna
will not remain uniform if we reduce the size of the flat-top or hat.
Current will become zero at the very top with no hat, and 100% base loading. In this
case, with no change in height, radiation resistance will be approximately 1/4th the
value of the uniform current example. The result is exactly like a 50% reduction in
effective element height.
If we follow the 10-degree line to the intersection point with 0 top current, we find
radiation resistance to be around .32 ohms. 1.27 ohms, the radiation resistance for
uniform current, becomes 1.27/4 or .3175 ohms.
If we stay on the uniform current line, we find that .3175 ohms would be the radiation
resistance of a 5-degree monopole with uniform current.

We can reach the following conclusions:

Radiation resistance, or at least the useful definition of radiation resistance, is

limited by spatial area (or height in the case of a vertical) any antenna occupies.

Radiation resistance is maximized by making current as large as possible over

the entire spatial area of the antenna.

Surrounding objects generally reduce radiation resistance and efficiency, even

when they are NOT resonant, because they reduce effective height! This
includes dielectrics that increase capacitance of the antenna to ground, since any
increase in capacitance appearing well below the top of an antenna reduces
effective height.

Radiation comes from charge acceleration, nothing else. The longer the linear
spatial distance we move charges in, the fewer charges we need to move at any
point for the same amount of EM radiation. This is just another way of saying
radiation resistance is higher in physically longer structures, especially when they
carry uniform current. Radiated power directly ties to in-line ampere-feet.

Any antenna (including Linear Loading, Helical Loading, Folded Monopoles,

Fractal shapes, CFA, E-H, and so on) claiming to increase radiation resistance
beyond the limits outline above is based on misunderstanding or distortion of
basic antenna principles.
An ideal antenna would simply accept all the power sent to it from a source and
radiate it away into space. So far as the generator is concerned, this behaviour is
indistinguishable from what happens if it's output is connected to a load
impedance which matches its own output impedance, Zg.
A real antenna won't radiate all the power it receives. Some will be dissipated in
antenna losses and simply warm it up a bit. Some power may bounce off the
antenna and be reflected back to the generator. These three effects, radiation,
loss, and reflection, can be represented by three impedances (RR is the
antenna's Radiation Resistance value; it represents the antenna properties which
allow power to radiate away. R is the Loss Resistance; it represents the ways
power is dissipated, warming up the antenna. X is the antenna reactance; this
represents any ways the antenna can store energy, returning it to the generator
after a delay).
This reactive behaviour is a bit like the way a capacitor or inductor can store
electrical energy and release it later. For an ideal antenna we would therefore
arrange that

Zg = RR , R = 0 , and X = 0
In principle, if a magnetic loop was perfect (i.e. it had perfectly conducting wire)
we could expect it to radiate all the power we drove into the loop. In reality the
efficiency of the loop will depend on the relative levels of the loops real
(dissipation) resistance and its radiation resistance. By going through the
appropriate calculations we can find that, for a small loop, the radiation
resistance will be

where A is the loop area and lambda is the wavelength.

The metallic resistance of the loop will

where l is the length of the wire around the loop (i.e. n times the circumference), d is the
diameter of the wire, f is the signal frequency, and sigma is the conductivity of the metal
wires.
In the absence of any resistive losses, the antenna gain of a small loop (and that of a
Hertzian dipole) would be 175dB. In reality the effective gain is reduced by power
dissipation in the resistive losses. It is conventional to describe these losses in terms of
a Radiation Efficiency Factor,

The antennas gain (and hence its effective area, etc) are then degraded by this factor
compared to what wed expect from a perfect antenna with the same directional
behaviour. In practice we tend to find that as with the dipole the real resistance tends to
have a higher value than the radiation resistance, hence the loop does not perform as
well as we would wish. Although typical loops have a k value well below unity they tend
to offer higher values than a Hertzian dipole. Their efficiency can also be dramatically
improved by the use of a Ferrite Rod
Antennas with dimensions << wavelength:
for a Hertzian dipole,

The Ferrite Rod Antenna:

Here
is the ferrites effective relative magnetic permeability. This depends upon the
choice of material and the size and shape of the rod. (This shape dependence is
because some of the magnetic field escapes from the rod away from the coil.) For
frequencies of a few hundred kilohertz we can obtain ferrites which provide
values in
the range from around 100 to around 10,000. Taking the example of an
we
can see that using the ferrite can increase the antennas radiation resistance by a factor
of a million! Hence the ferrite can have a dramatic effect in improving the antennas
efficiency.