From what I understand about antennas, they have a certain impedance. At the antenna's resonant frequency, the capacitive and inductive reactances cancel and the reactive part of the antenna impedance is 0 ohms. However, there is also something called the radiation resistance that still exists at resonance (for a dipole, it is commonly 71 ohms). How can this be? At resonance, doesn't the feedpoint of the antenna look like a short circuit due to resonance? When the antenna is matched to a transmission line, do you use the reactance or the radiation resistance?


1 Answer 1


At resonance the imaginary part is zero, yes. Why is it surprising that there's still a real part?

Imagine a series (or parallel) RLC circuit. At the resonant frequency, the L and C impedance are equal and opposite. But you still have the R.

Another thing - the resistance that's left is not just radiation resistance, some of it is loss resistance - real resistive loss in the wires, etc.

  • \$\begingroup\$ So then why does the radiation resistance depend on the antenna type, and not just resistive losses in the coax/wire? \$\endgroup\$
    – crocboy
    Commented Aug 3, 2015 at 18:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's just the physics of the antenna. One explanation on a dipole is quite simple. A dipole has a fundamental characteristic mode, like a guitar string. If you wiggle a guitar string in the middle, where it moves a lot, then you will have to move a long distance, but not push very hard. If you hold it near the end, to get the same volume you'll only need to push a small distance, but with a lot more force. It's the same (but opposite) with a dipole. Feed it in the middle, 70 ohms. Feed it near the end, much higher impedance. \$\endgroup\$
    – tomnexus
    Commented Aug 3, 2015 at 18:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If the equivalent circuit of the antenna was purely C & L, then it would never (permanently) remove any energy from the circuit. Since energy is conserved, this would mean that it couldn't radiate any energy to be detected by a receiving antenna, and it wouldn't be very useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – The Photon
    Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 1:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It's worth remembering that if radiation resistance went to 0 at resonance, the antenna wouldn't make much of an antenna! \$\endgroup\$
    – hobbs
    Commented Apr 5, 2016 at 22:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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