blog:2025-02-03:antenna_isolation
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| blog:2025-02-03:antenna_isolation [2025/02/03 19:44] – va7fi | blog:2025-02-03:antenna_isolation [2025/02/03 19:51] (current) – va7fi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ~~NOTOC~~ | ||
| + | ====== Antenna Isolation ====== | ||
| + | {{ / | ||
| + | Suppose you want to mount two (vertically polarized) antennas for two different radios that will use similar frequencies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The radiation pattern of a dipole looks like a doughnut, so it makes sense that for a vertically polarized antenna, the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The isolation formula for vertical separation is((See: https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | \$$ \text{Isolation} =28 + 40 \cdot \log \left(\frac{d}{\lambda}\right) \$$ | ||
| + | where: | ||
| + | * λ is the wavelength of the radio frequency used | ||
| + | * d is the vertical separation between the two feed points of the antennas (in the same units as λ) | ||
| + | * the resulting Isolation is in dB | ||
| + | |||
| + | Here's a table and a graph of computed values for separation values \$\frac{d}{\lambda}\$ between 1 and 20 (that is, when the antennas are between 1 wavelength and 20 wavelengths away from each other): | ||
| + | <WRAP half column> | ||
| + | |< | ||
| + | ^Separation^Isolation (dB)^ ^Separation^Isolation (dB)^ | ||
| + | |1|28^ |11|70| | ||
| + | |2|40^ |12|71| | ||
| + | |3|47^ |13|73| | ||
| + | |4|52^ |14|74| | ||
| + | |5|56^ |15|75| | ||
| + | |6|59^ |16|76| | ||
| + | |7|62^ |17|77| | ||
| + | |8|64^ |18|78| | ||
| + | |9|66^ |19|79| | ||
| + | |10|68^ |20|80| | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | <WRAP half column> | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | <iframe width=" | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | So for example, if two antennas used around 147 MHz are 3 m apart (feedpoint to feedpoint), the isolation will be about: | ||
| + | * \$ \lambda = \frac{300}{147} = 2.04 \text{ m} \$ | ||
| + | * \$ \text{Isolation} = 28 + 40 \log(\frac{3 \text{ m}}{2.04 \text{ m}}) \approx 35 \text{ dB} \$ | ||
| + | |||
| + | And if we wanted 70 dB of isolation, from the table, we see that we'd need the two antennas separated by 11 wavelengths, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first thing to note is that there' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |< | ||
| + | ^ Separation ^ Isolation (dB) ^ | ||
| + | | 1 | 28 | | ||
| + | | 2 | 40 | | ||
| + | | 4 | 52 | | ||
| + | | 8 | 64 | | ||
| + | | 16 | 76 | | ||
| + | |||
| + | The way to think of it is that a separation of 1 wavelength gives an isolation of 28 dB. But then, every doubling of the separation adds another 12 dB of isolation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For the math geeks, here's how to get the 12 dB to come out of the isolation formula: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Logarithms can be expressed in any base that we find convenient. | ||
| + | \$$ 40 \log_{10}(x) = 40 \frac{\log_2(x)}{\log_2(10)} = \frac{40}{\log_2(10)} \cdot \log_2(x) = 40\log_{10}(2) \cdot \log_2(x) \approx 12 \log_2(x)\$$ | ||
| + | |||
| + | So these two formulas are really the same: | ||
| + | \$$ \text{Isolation} =28 + 40 \cdot \log \left(\frac{d}{\lambda}\right) \qquad \text{or} \qquad | ||
| + | |||
| + | They both say: when the separation is one wavelength, the isolation will be 28 dB. | ||
| + | * But then the first one says: every time you multiply that separation by 10 (1, 10, 100, 1000, etc), you'll add 40 dB of isolation. | ||
| + | * And the second one says: every time you multiply that separation by 2 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc), you'll add 12 dB of isolation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally, if we look at the graph above but stretch the horizontal axis so that the separation between 1 and 2 is the same as that between 2 and 4, and between 4 and 8, etc, we get a [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | <iframe width=" | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ~~DISCUSSION~~ | ||
