Voltage and current on a transmission line with standing waves

Folk often ask how to calculate the maximum voltage on an antenna feed line with standing waves, often to get a feel for the necessary voltage withstand of baluns, feed line, switches and relays, and ATUs.

Feeding at a current maximum outlines the method described in detail at (Duffy 2011), but the approach is more complex than a lot of hams want.

A simpler method is to treat the transmission line as lossless, and to simply find the worst case voltage and current that can occur… and design for that, or perhaps do the more detailed analysis depending on the outcome.

A new calculator, Calculate Vmax, Vmin, Imax, Imin for lossless line from Zload (or Yload) and Zo, does just that.

Screenshot - 29_01_16 , 19_45_17

Above is the built-in example of a G5RV with tuned feeder on 80m with feed point impedance derived from a modelling package. The voltage and currents calculated are those for a long lossless feed line.
Continue reading Voltage and current on a transmission line with standing waves

Exploiting your antenna analyser #12

Is there a place for UHF series connectors in critical measurement at UHF?

Seeing some recent discussion by a chap who was trying to construct a low power 50Ω termination on a UHF series plug, it bought to mind the futility of using some kinds of connector for critical measurement above perhaps 100MHz.

There is a lot of conjecture about the nature of UHF series connectors, whether they act line a simple transmission line section with fairly uniform Zo, whether they are really just a lumped shunt capacitance, whether it is even important at UHF etc.

To illustrate the issue, I have assembled a simple test jig comprising an N(M)-UHF(F) adapter, UHF(M)-N(F) adapter and a 50Ω N termination (which was also used to calibrate the analyser. This set was assembled and plugged onto a calibrated AIMuhf analyser and swept from 1-500MHz… just into the UHF range (which is 300-3000MHz).


Above, the test jig.

Screenshot - 29_01_16 , 14_15_27

Above is an expanded scale centre of the Smith chart of the sweep. Continue reading Exploiting your antenna analyser #12

APRS duplicate removal

I have written about duplicate position records assigned different timestamps in the APRS – APRS-IS – archiver network, and the corruption of mapping as a result of false timestamps which causes zig zags in the mapping.

Most recently, I demonstrated that at APRS – APRS-IS latency.

I have been challenged that this just does not happen.

As a by product of developing code to circumvent the defects in the design and implementation, I have been running a rover stationary on the driveway during the day to supply test data to the filtering code, and of course these exceptions have occurred.

Here is an extract of the raw packets log from aprs.fi for just one case.

2016-01-26 16:20:25 AEDT: VK2OMD-8>APT314,WIDE1-1,WIDE2-2,qAR,VK2OMD-3:/052024h3429.91S/15027.12E>110/000/A=002263
2016-01-26 16:23:17 AEDT: VK2OMD-8>APT314,VK2RHR-1,WIDE1,VK1RGI-1,VK2RWG-1,WIDE2*,qAS,VK2KAW:/052024h3429.91S/15027.12E>110/000/A=002263

Inspection will reveal that both records have the GPS derived timestamp 052024h, and the message contents are identical, they are both a result of a single posit report at 052024UTC, the relay via VK2KAW has been assigned a timestamp some 173s (almost 3m) later and were the rover moving, this corrupted report would cause a track back and the next valid report would leap forward.

In six hours of operation, there were 36 posits transmitted, and 11 corrupt posits via VK2KAW logged by APRS-IS, that is 31% of valid posits have a false and corrupted posit generated in the wider network.

APRS fails by design, the core infrastructure does not detect these anomalies and discard them. Note that this scenario is ONLY provable because the tracker sends the HMS format timestamp… which almost no-one does.

This is only one source of corruption of posits, vulnerability to this one is designed into APRS, but it is detectable and fixable in core infrastructure.


APRS – APRS-IS latency

A fundamental problem with APRS-IS is that archives assign a timestamp to a position report (posit) when the posit is received from the APRS-IS network. They do this even when the posit contains a timestamp which is almost always derived from the GPS and is quite accurate.

The archives such as findu.com and aprs.fi are not formally part of APRS-IS, but they are the visible interface to APRS-IS for many and are treated as part of the wider APRS-IS network in this article.

The APRS-IS network is designed to permit, encourage even, multiple submissions of the same originating posit via multiple iGates over multiple digipeater radio links.

You might expect that the maximum latency of two or three digipeater links might be a couple of seconds but not only is it ordinarily longer than that due to an overcommitted network, but defective infrastructure using old and misconfigured software can introduce much larger delays.

The effect of delayed duplicates is that they create false back and forth zig zags in a track, and make the mapping hopelessly inaccurate.

For this article, I will use data gained from a recent 100km rural trip using VHF APRS. For all of the trip, the rover was in range of a prominent digipeater which is monitored by many iGates, and for about half of the trip, the rover was in working distance of one of the iGates. About 200 posits were captured by APRS-IS, and they have a GPS derived HHMMSS timestamp.

Lets look at the latency.

Clip 114

Above is a chart of the difference between APRS archive timstamp and the GPS timestamp. A very large number of posits takes more than a couple of seconds to reach the APRS-IS archives. Continue reading APRS – APRS-IS latency

Graphic demonstration of loss under standing waves #3

Having recently published Graphic demonstration of loss under standing waves, I have received a stream of emails asking whether some online calculator or another is subject to the errors discussed in the article.

Clip 080If we look at the graph from the article showing the example of a load of 500+j0Ω on 5m of RG58A/U, test the left hand data point at 1MHz and see what you get. If the loss is greater than the matched line loss (around 0.08dB), the calculator probably uses one of the flawed formulas discussed in the article… in any event it is wrong.

Here is an example from KV5R.com.

Screenshot - 22_01_16 , 10_11_37

The calculated loss is around 4 times what it should be. Continue reading Graphic demonstration of loss under standing waves #3

VSWR expressed as 1:n

At Expression of VSWR as a simple decimal real number I put the case for expressing VSWR simply as a real (ie a decimal) number rather than in the ratio form.

Lets remind ourselves of the meaning of VSWR (SWR).

(Terman 1955) gives a meaning for the term SWR (or VSWR).

The character of the voltage (or current) distribution on a transmission line can be conveniently described in terms of the ratio of the maximum amplitude to minimum amplitude possessed by the distribution. This quantity is termed the standing wave ratio (often abbreviated SWR)…

Standing-wave ratio=S=Emax/Emin

Terman has not dealt with the complication of short lines and lossy lines.

Note that the use of capital E implies the magnitude of voltage, so Emax/Emin must always be a positive number greater than or equal to 1.0 under that definition. Under that definition (and it has shortcomings), VSWR expressed as a ratio of m:n (and n is usually 1), m MUST be equal to or greater than n.

Screenshot - 20_01_16 , 11_35_41

Above is an extract from the brochure for Icom’s newest offering, the IC-7300. Continue reading VSWR expressed as 1:n

Hosting change

Over the last two weeks, owenduffy.net has been moved from one Hosting Services Provider to another, domain registration, DNS, website, and email hosting.

Despite efforts to make the transition transparent, some code in some calculators turned out to be less reliable on the new site and some changes made to make them reliable. QSRF was the main troublesome app, but is now stable and the update service has been improved to two hourly in the revision.

It is a quite complex web site, and a huge amount of work, some 10,000+ files, several databases, lots of custom PHP applications, and subtle but significant changes in PHP and apache environments.

Hopefully it has been worth the work (~150h) in terms of reliable affordable service for the future. The new hosting environment is certainly easier to work with and properly supports remote secured access… so that has to be good.

Signed application programs

There is some advantage in publishing digitally signed applications, so I have updated the distributions for FSC (Field Strength Calculator , FSM (Field Strength Meter), and (NFM) Noise Figure Meter to sign both the installer and the application executable.

Since it is only addition of a signature, the versions have not been updated, and the update will not trigger the new version detection built into the applications.

See Digital document signatures for information on getting the CA certificate for which you will then want to edit the trust settings.

There was a quite recent update to FSM v1.11.0, and a more recent update to add the signatures.

The signatures give you confidence about the origin of the installer, and that it has not been intercepted by one of the download sources that wrap the software in an adware enabled installer (eg OpenCandy). Always download my software from my site, there are NO authorised distributors!


Exploiting your antenna analyser #11

Backing out transmission line

Often we make measurements through a section of transmission line, and the measurements are wrt the reference plane, which for many analysers is the connector on the instrument.

Some analysers, or their associated software allow the effects of the transmission line to be backed out.

Screenshot - 17_01_16 , 09_16_18

Above is a Smith chart view of measurement of a test antenna through some length of RG58. The antenna will have R<50Ω at minimum VSWR, so the angle of the complex reflection coefficient Γ will be close to 180° at the feed point. Antscope uses a different notation, but shows here the angle at the point of measurement to be -15.1°, so we need to increase it by 180–15.1=195.1°, which will take about half that electrical length of line, 97.6°. From TLLC, I calculate the length involved is 7.6m of RG58, which is an estimate that gives a starting point for backing out the cable. Continue reading Exploiting your antenna analyser #11

Some thoughts on noise on 6m (50MHz)…

External noise

External noise is the noise external to the receiver system.

(ITU-R 2015) gives some guidance on expected ambient noise.

Screenshot - 10_01_16 , 09_49_56

Above is Figure 10 which gives guidance on the expected median ambient noise figure.

Screenshot - 16_01_16 , 11_12_29

The table above gives calculates noise power in a 2kHz bandwidth receiver with lossless antenna system for the lower ham bands from the equations given in (ITU-R 2015). Note that the medians vary somewhat with location and time, see (ITU-R 2015).

From the table, business (city) man made noise (A) is 17dB higher than galactic (E), and rural (C) is 7dB higher than galactic. Unless there is some ionospheric absorption occurring, you are unlikely to observe noise below galactic level.

Noise can be expected to vary by hour of day, from day to day, and season to season. Importantly, noise may vary with direction, eg pointing through busy roads, office buildings, shopping centres etc, neighbouring buildings, powerlines etc.

Measurement of external noise is not too difficult, but rarely do hams understand quantitatively their own noise environment.

Internal noise

Noise contributed by the various stages of a receiver system can be reduced to an equivalent input noise at the input of a noiseless receiver, and that is often expressed in the form of the receiver Noise Figure.

A typical receiving system for 6m would have a noise figure around 6dB (at the antenna connector). As will be seen, there is little need for better noise figure.

The noise floor of a receiving system with NF=6dB (4.5dB receiver and 1.5dB line loss) is -135dBm. In such a receiver, AGC action is typically delayed until the signal is around 25dB above the noise floor, around -110dBm in this case. There will be no S meter deflection in traditional receivers below AGC onset.

Clip 107

Above, the median expected noise falls below the typical AGC threshold (S meter threshold) for the example receiver (-110dBm), and apart from Curve A, the noise may not cause S meter deflection.

In a single isolated measurement at my location, I measured -123dBm which is in the range expected of a semi rural residential with underground power.

Receivers with an additional preamp may show significant S meter deflection, the preamp will increase gain without significantly improving S/N ratio, indeed they may degrade S/N ratio.

Total noise power

The internal and external noise power add, but it is the power in watts or in equivalent temperature that can be added, not the dBm figure.

Clip 105

The chart above shows the effect of combining two additive power values. If they differ by more than 20dB, the sum is within 0.05dB of the higher power. For lesser ratios, the weaker power needs to be factored in, and the graph provides a simple means if you don’t want to crunch the numbers.

For example, if we took the median power in a quiet rural precinct from the table above to be -119.9dBm, and noise floor to be -135dBm, looking up -135–119.9=-15.1dB on the horizontal axis we see that the combined power is 0.15dB more than the higher power, so -119.1+0.15=-119.8dBm. This is unlikely to cause S meter deflection most of the time as the median is almost 10dB lower than AGC onset.

Working the numbers for residential precinct from the table above to be -114.6dBm, and noise floor to be -135dBm, looking up -135–114.6=-20.4dB on the horizontal axis we see that the combined power is 0.05dB more than the higher power, so -114.6+0.05=-119.8dBm., -114.6. This is likely to cause S meter deflection occasionally as the median is just 5dB lower than AGC onset.

Low noise antennas

One of the recent market directions is so-called low noise antennas. The term is used to describe directional antennas with reduced side lobe response inspired perhaps by (Bertelsmeier 1987) who contrived a rather naive statistic based on the noise power captured by a Yagi in free space tilted up 30° from the Z=0 plane and excited by two arbitrary noise scenarios in the upper and lower hemispheres, the statistic labelled G/Ta, transformed by others to G/T in  ignorance of the true meaning of the industry term G/T.

Reduced side lobe response sounds a good idea, but what is the expected impact on total external noise power received?

For a Yagi in free space, if the distribution of external noise is uniform in three dimensional space:

  • the same noise power will be received irrespective of the pointing of the antenna; and
  • a lossless antenna captures the same amount of noise power irrespective of its gain.

But we are not in free space, are we.

For Yagi pointing horizontally over flat ground, if the distribution of external noise is evenly distributed over all azimuth headings:

  • the same noise power will be received irrespective of the pointing of the antenna; and
  • a lossless antenna captures the same amount of noise power irrespective of its gain.

The situation changes if the noise intensity is not uniform with azimuth bearing and elevation if there are more concentrated noise sources.

It should be apparent that reducing the average gain off the main lobe reduces power from noise sources to the side and rear, but if the pattern is not even, and it never is, then it is a matter of chance as to whether pattern nulls or peaks coincide with concentrated noise sources when pointing in a desired direction.

The complexity of this environment mitigates against a meaningful single metric for the noise capture of a Yagi.

One cannot argue against the logic that reduced sidelobe gain is an advantage in reducing off boresight noise, but it does imply increased main lobe gain (and possibly noise pickup) the question is really how much net advantage there is on 50MHz in your station with your noise environment on the paths you see as high priority.


    • Bertelsmeier, R. 1987. Effective noise temperatures of 4-Yagi-arrays for 432MHz. DUBUS.

Duffy, O. May 2013. Noise and receivers presentation. http://owenduffy.net/files/NoiseAndReceivers.pdf.

  • ITU-R. 2000. Recommendation ITU-R S.733-2 (2000) Determination of the G/T ratio for earth stations operating in the fixed-satellite service .
  • ITU-R. Jul 2015. Recommendation ITU-R P.372-12 (7/2015) Radio noise.