Richard Fry wrote:
This is true only to the extent that all the power ever generated by the
transmitter eventually either is radiated by the antenna or is dissipated by
losses somewhere.

The fly in the ointment is a definition.

If a signal generator is sourcing 100 watts and 20 watts of reflected
power is being dissipated in a circulator load resistor, we say the
source is sourcing 100 watts and 20 watts of reflected power is being
dissipated in the circulator load resistor.

If the identical thing happens in a ham transmitter, we say that the
source is sourcing 80 watts, BY DEFINITION. What's wrong with this
picture? Ham transmitters NEVER re-reflect anything, by definition.

The reason that the source impedance doesn't enter into the forward/reflected
power values is that it has been defined out of any relationship to them. By
definition, there is zero power re-reflected from a ham transmitter NO MATTER
WHAT THE IMPEDANCE OF THE HAM TRANSMITTER MIGHT BE. Never mind that we can see
those reflections with our own eyes in TV ghosting. We must be crazy because
they have been defined out of existence. How dare we have the gall to observe
them!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----