4
$\begingroup$

I am doing research on near-field harvesting. In my situation the transmitting antenna is a dipole antenna operating at 2.45 GHz and its length is 14 cm long. I am trying to find how far near-field reactive region extends from the antenna.

I noticed that there are two kinds of formulas – one for very short antennas (i.e. $\lambda/(2\pi)$) and other for longer antennas ($0.62 \sqrt{(D\cdot D\cdot D)/\lambda}$). Here are my questions:

  1. In my situation, do I have to use the second formula to find near-field reactive region boundary?
  2. If I have to harvest within the reactive field of the transmitting antenna, can I use a dipole antenna or do I have to use a coil?
  3. If I can use a dipole antenna within the reactive region for harvesting, how would I find its impedance?
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Quick comment: There are equations for the near fields of an antenna, which will give you E and H for any position. These fields extend forever, but most of the components decay as 1/radius^2. What we call far fields are an approximation, valid not too close to the antenna, and as travelling waves the fields decay with 1/r. The two "regions" are where reactive or travelling fields are stronger. Google for the near fields of a dipole antenna. $\endgroup$ – tomnexus Oct 14 '15 at 6:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A dipole at 2.45 GHz is about 6 cm long. Is this really the length of the antenna, or is it the length of the plastic housing? The antenna will also have a coaxial cable, while it does also form part of the antenna, I'd suggest ignoring it for now and using the most basic dipole, for which there are manageable equations. $\endgroup$ – tomnexus Oct 14 '15 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Tomnexus. The transmitter is a 5 dbi antenna. It makes sense that the length can be longer than 6 cm. $\endgroup$ – Shiva Mudide Oct 14 '15 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ That's a lot of questions for one question. $\endgroup$ – Phil Frost - W8II Oct 14 '15 at 14:31
1
$\begingroup$

I would say the near field would be no more than about 28cm max.
You could use a dipole or a coil, but the dipole would be more efficient.
If you wanted to find the impedance of a dipole in the reactance region, go for EZNEC. No way you'll find an analyzer in tat high a frequency.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you please share info on why dipole is more efficient than a coil? $\endgroup$ – Shiva Mudide Oct 17 '15 at 19:52
  • $\begingroup$ Coils have much more loss than plain wire. Otherwise, you could pack a 160M antenna into a coffee mug and it would work just as well. It just doesn't follow. See sayedsaad.com/fundmental/… $\endgroup$ – Daniel Oct 18 '15 at 3:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Daniel. Can I still use a dipole antenna in reactive field or it has to be a coil becuase it's reactive field? $\endgroup$ – Shiva Mudide Oct 18 '15 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ You can use it in the reactive field, but just make sure it's impedance matches pretty close. The formula for impedance from complex impedance is this: For Z = RΩ ± jXΩ, Z = √(R^2 + X^2) where R is the radiation resistance, and X is the reactance (+ for inductance, - for capacitance), and Z is the final impedance. Keep in mind, the capacitive reactance can be cancelled out with inductive reactance of the same absolute value. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Oct 18 '15 at 19:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.