Talk:Antenna (radio)

Direct link for Schmitt reference

The reference "Understanding electromagnetic fields and antenna radiation takes (almost) no math", by Ron Schmitt, EDN Magazine, March 2 2000 is linked to a host that is not related to the publisher (very useful article, by the way). Since the article is freely available on the EDN website, shouldn't the link be made to that page? Here is a direct link: http://www.edn.com/article/CA82250.html That page contains a link to the PDF version, which is the same as the one currently linked.

bandwidth limit

The June 2009 Antennas and Propagation article addresses only magnetic dipole antennas, but the conclusions apply to electric dipoles by the symmetry between electric and magnetic fields. It gives a tighter upper bound for loop antenna band widths. Magnetic materials help by lowering H for a given B.

Too much animation (GIF)

Is there some way to freeze the GIFs? A browser setting? I find the writhing pictures nauseating to look at after a few minutes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess they could reduce the frame rate to make it more pleasing, but I have another problem. The animation explaining the half-wave dipole antenna doesn't seem to show the relationship between the length of the antenna element and the wavelength of the RF?

From the diagram, it appears that the element length doesn't matter?

Paging Chetvorno Wikitra (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"I concur". Initially I quite enjoyed the animation but after 10 seconds I moved on to read the text and I found it very difficult to concentrate while the animation is looping. -- Taostlt (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski and Taostlt: Created the following animation File:Dipole xmting antenna animation 4 continuous HD 1080 12 fps.webm based on the original work by Chetvorno. This video can be considered as a possible substitution for the animated GIF. - DutchTreat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @DutchTreat, great work. This appears as a good alternative which both contributes to the understanding of the article while not becoming too distracting at length. Thanks for your attention. Taostlt (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Glad to offer some help. DutchTreat (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Some irritating person edited out a referenced quote

On 1 June 2022‎ User:Ruslik0 deleted the following quote from §Modeling antennas with line equations:

In the first approximation, the current in a thin antenna is distributed
exactly as in a transmission line. — Schelkunoff & Friis (1952)

The quote is cited, pertinent, and correct. Best of all, it is a statement by the "last of the great" mathematical antenna theorists, S.A. Schelkunoff, from the era before computer software (e.g. the Numerical Electromagnetics Code) displaced it in common use. I have restored it, and posted a scold on the user's talk page.

In the face of repeated vandalism-like reversion, I've restored the edits by a seemingly illustrious but deeply ill-informed editor User:Ruslik0. To User:Ruslik0 and any sympathizers, I admonish you to stop the editorial rejection of this idea: The cited texts explicitly show (consider the quote) that antenna elements actually are well approximated as single-conductor transmission lines, however bizarre the idea might seem.

Modeling antennas with the telegrapher's equations isn't a new idea, and isn't personal research. It's been done throughout the last century, and continues to be handy for some applications. The reason that Raines wrote his 2007 book (confusingly titled Folded Unipole Antennas, it's not quite that specialized) was to attempt a revival of sorts for this old technique.

There seems to be an epidemic of people who think they're competent at antenna engineering, possibly because of a degree in physics or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering who don't understand how to model antenna segments as transmission lines and are hostile to the idea – even though the standing text actually does mention (grudgingly) that this is a procedure that is still actually done.

For example, copious examples in QST and QEX show some radio amateurs' simple antenna designs are based on transmission line formulae, although sensible antenna builders are still careful to model a back-of-the-envelope design with some NEC-based software, or work-alike. I also note that since the turn of the century, many amateurs and electrical engineering college student guess designs based on intuition and then go directly to software modeling.

Apparently electrical engineers educated in this century, who have not had a graduate-level antenna theory course, have been (merely) introduced to antenna theory via use of computer-software. I am now given to suspect that undergraduate E.E. courses only bring up transmission line equations for two-conductor transmission lines. It is probably convenient to skip past using transmission line equations for antennas (every straight-wire antenna element is approximately a single-conductor transmission line): Some version NEC software is easier to use.

The revert that I have reversed is a statement in the introduction to one of the most venerable of all textbooks (though dated) on the exact subject of modelling antennas (all forms: monopoles, loops, and dipoles) using transmission line equations. Further, it constitutes an endorsement by Schelkunoff & Friis of the exact subject that the section addresses. They were perhaps the last of the "great" pre-computer antenna theorists, and their book continued to be used for graduate courses in antenna theory into the 1970s (where I first, briefly, encountered it) particularly in graduate courses in electrical engineering.

If you think the quote is a false statement, I say that that belief is an indication of crippling limitation in your understanding of advanced antenna theory. I strongly suggest that if you find yourself among the "that can't be right" crowd of post-1990s physics or radio engineering students, that you read either of the actual books cited (Schelkunoff & Friis, 1952, or Raines, 2007). Schelkunoff & Friis (1952) is available free from the Internet Archive, but it's a hard slog if you're not already familiar with practical antenna building and good at mathematics. (There were several later editions in the 1960s, and I think one in the 1970s, I don't think they are much different.) I recommend Raines (2007) instead: It's not free for download, but lots of what Raines presents is borrowed from Schelkunoff & Friis; and being a this-century writer, his book might be a bit more accessible.

Clearly, if you're hostile to the idea, you need improved education. Don't mess with the quote again, until after you've done your homework. And if you still feel like deleting it, then you didn't do enough homework, or you didn't read the right stuff.
107.116.93.54 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The facts are suitable to be in the article. But having a quote is not the best way to do it. Rewrite it in your own language. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

Text under the first image says patch antennas, but celluar antennas actually use phased arrays crossed dipoles 185.212.13.192 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2025

Antenna (radio) → Radio antenna – WP:NATURAL, akin to Radio receiver. Remsense ‥ 论 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Telecommunications, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject Electronics, and WikiProject Radio have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support – It is what an antenna is referred to as in natural speech if context does not already disambiguate it. —Quondum 01:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose – I agree with the general perspective expressed by others here. To me the topic seems to be broader than simply radio antennas, which would suggest that neither the current nor the suggested rename are great, hence my change to 'oppose'. I would suggest finding another disambiguation, along the lines already suggested below. —Quondum 14:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - For general readers, this would limit the term "antenna" to those used for their understanding of the common meaning of "radio": antennas for radio broadcasting or reception. The term "antenna" is also used for television antennas, radar antennas, wifi antennas, satellite antennas, telemetry antennas, microwave relay antennas, etc. and calling them "radio antennas" will be confusing for nontechnical people. Also, engineers and technical literature do not refer to antennas in general as "radio antennas". --Chetvorno^TALK 01:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe instead we could add the term radio antenna to the lead sentence as an informal alternate name. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article called "Antenna" with the trailing parenthetical being wiki-speak for disambiguation. "Antenna" matches the content, as would "Electromagnetic wave antenna" or "Antenna (electromagnetic wave)" or "Antenna (electromagnetic)". "Antenna (radio)" is a poor match I agree, but "Radio antenna" is worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support (as long as radio is in part the title): if Antenna (radio) is sufficient to disambiguate then so it is radio antenna. If this article is not only for radio antennas then also Antenna (radio) should change to a more broad name.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As Johnjbarton suggested above, the name could be changed to the more broad "Antenna (radio wave)" or "Antenna (electromagnetic)", although I think the existing name is okay. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@ReyHahn I'm confused by your comments. As you can see the article is not only about radio antennas. So by your analysis the name should change. Then why would you support "Radio antenna"? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I am in favor of radio antenna over antenna (radio), that's all. Another name may work better.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

We have Television antenna and Microwave antenna so maybe we need to change this article to match Radio antenna and move any non-radio content elsewhere. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I think that's totally inappropriate and I strongly oppose it. Whatever it is named, we need an overall umbrella article for "Antenna" like this one that describes the common features of all antennas. It has links in the "Antenna types" section to specialized categories of antennas. In electronics literature there are countless textbooks that cover antennas in general.

We just need to come to a consensus on a name for this article. What about "Antenna (radio wave)"? I can live with "Antenna (electromagnetic) and several others that have been mentioned. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This all makes sense, though I don't think a parenthetical adjective works well (see WP:NCDAB), which might argue against "Antenna (electromagnetic)". While not ideal, we could consider Antenna (electromagnetism). Splitting into an umbrella antenna article "Antenna (electromagnetism)" and Radio antenna could also work. —Quondum 13:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chetvorno I strongly oppose your proposal: this article has lots of material about "Radio antenna" that belongs in an article with that name.

On the other hand I think our proposals are just the same from different directions. Your "umbrella" is my "elsewhere". Johnjbarton (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Johnjbarton: I don't understand your proposal. What is your definition of a "Radio antenna"? Why is it different from a generic "Antenna" so it doesn't come under the heading of this article? Or are you agreeing with the requested move to rename this article "Radio antenna"? --Chetvorno^TALK 16:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am proposing that "Radio antenna" have its "common meaning," an antenna for radios, broadly defined. So eg the first image, a Television antenna would not appear on the Radio antenna page. I was just trying to find a way forward from the nominators position. We have been proposing to go in the opposite direction, but "radio antenna" seems to me to be a notable topic as well. Look at Television antenna: that is what readers could expect from Radio antenna, not what they get now.

I agree that an overview page and I agree it needs a name other than "Antenna (radio)". In fact many of our suggestions are better than the current one if the topic is "overview of electronic antenna", and they are all better than "Radio antenna" for the overview. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but would not like the general topic article to be of the nature of an "overview", at least not one that would fit a title "Overview of electromagnetic antennas", but rather one that would evolve into something covering general antenna theory, some of which is currently covered in this article. —Quondum 21:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Johnjbarton I agree with Quondum's preceding comment. And I don't think it is possible to define a subset of "Antenna" called "Radio antenna" in any rigorous or useful way. It is just a nontechnical person's colloquial name for common antennas in general. What is a "radio" versus a "nonradio" use of an antenna? If it came down to it, I would prefer to see this article renamed "Radio antenna" than an ambiguous attempt at a subarticle named "Radio antenna". --Chetvorno^TALK 23:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, I was not disagreeing with Johnjbarton's suggestion, only the idea of an article intended as an "overview". However, you point out that the concept of "radio" is ill-defined, and indeed, it could refer to audio transceiver equipment, or to a band of the electromagnetic spectrum that has proven amenable to access through electronics, and possibly others. So, perhaps, we should seek to define and agree on the topics before we debate article titles. Given the large number of articles just on antennas (see Category:Antennas (radio) and Category:Antennas), classifying the their applications will be pretty challenging. I see where you are coming from, and cannot disagree. I have not been involved in this area for ages, and even when I was, it was not in a deep way. —Quondum 23:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Try 'radio antenna' in a web search. Those are radio antenna for most people. We don't need a rigorous definition, just a natural one. Non-technical readers do not equate "radio" with "radio waves".

The issues important for AM radio antenna, eg Mast radiator, are different from issues important for Microwave antenna or optical rectenna don't you think? I understand that any random conductor can be used as an antenna but antenna designs are frequency specific, applications are mapped to frequencies, and both broadcasters and consumers are focused on applications.

An article on "radio antenna" could contrast AM and FM antenna and explain the overlap of FM and broadcast TV. The article could be a gateway to the very daunting issues of electromagnetic radiation. The hatnotes for "radio antenna" could include

This article is about antennas for audio transmission. For generic radio-frequency antenna, see antenna (radio).

or similar. As we currently are configured, a reader lands on this article for "radio antenna". I think that is unfortunate which is why I oppose the renaming.

We almost agree on Oppose. I am just trying to find a solution that addresses the issue raised by the nominator. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I recognise and agree with the need you are addressing. The antenna articles we have are too technical and detailed for general readers. I just don't think "Radio antenna" is a good name for a subarticle, it is just a synonym for "Antenna". What about a more targeted article name like "Introduction to radio antennas" or "Overview of common types of radio antennas" or "Antennas for audio transmission"? --Chetvorno^TALK 02:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, good, just help me understand you. You think "radio antenna" is short for "radio-frequency antenna" = antenna? What do you call the things we see when we search for "radio antenna" on the web? What do you propose for the redirect target of Radio antenna? I don't think there is a perfect solution here, so it's a matter of what readers have to make an extra click. I'm thinking the technical reader will understand the hatnote but maybe not vice versa. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)