Owen Duffy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:21:51 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:54:31 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:25:11 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
SWR is nothing more than a dimensionless impedance ratio.
The fundamental definition of SWR flows from the behaviour and
properties of RF transmission lines.
And power=EI. And it also equals I^2*R and E^2/R.
SWR can be expressed in terms of power ratios, current ratios, and
impedance ratios.
When a transmission line is terminated in an impedance other than its
characteristic impedance, there will be both a forward wave and a
reflected wave of such magnitude to resolve the conditions that must
apply at the termination.
Irrelevant.
The forward wave and the reflected wave sum at all points along the
line having regard for their magnitudes and relative phase to produce
a "standing wave". The Standing Wave Ratio (SWR or VSWR) is defined to
mean the ratio of the maximum to the minimum of the magnitude of the
standing wave voltage pattern along the line.
Is is also defined as a current ratio and an impedance ration.
The SWR on a lossless line can be calculated knowing the complex
characteristic impedance of the line and the complex load impedance.
What no waves, just impedences!! Now you are contidicting yourself.
The SWR on the line does not depend in any way on some unrelated
independent reference resistance as you suggest in your formula.
Read it again.
The R is the R of the thing at the end of the line.
The X is the X of the thing at the end of the line.
The X is the impedance of the line.
You seem to be suggesting that your redefined SWR is a really good
(obscure) way to talk about an impedance (independently of a
transmission line) in terms of some standardised reference value, and
you can throw away the fundamental meaning of SWR to support your
SWR(50) concept. In your terms (independently of a transmission line),
for instance, a Z of 60+j10 would be SWR(50)=1.299, and so would an
infinite number of other Zs have SWR(50)=1.299... how is that of
value. To know Z is 60+j10 is to know more than to know SWR(50)=1.299.
The equations given are general and can be derived from first priciples.
The Z in the equations is the Z of your reference, i.e. 50 for a 50
Ohm system.
SWR is *ALWAYS* relative to some reference impedance.
Jim, your comments are full of inconsistencies (like pronumeral X
having two different meanings in the same formula, equations described
as "general" but which do not allow for a reactance component in your
"reference z" which is actually the characteristic impedance of the
line in the real world, equations derived from first principles and
you state the first principles are "irelevant").
The last line is obviously a typo, it should be:
The Z is the impedance of the line.
Z is an impedance. An impedance is an absolute value.
The impedance of RG-8 coax, for example, is approximately 50 Ohms.
As I said, if you don't believe the equations, go get some resistors
and capacitors and do an experiment.
Until you do that you have no case.
In the absence of logic in your writing, I won't waste anymore time...
you have some deeply entrenched misconceptions and seem to have built
a large framework of simple views (like power=EI... a DC circuits
concept) to support the misconceptions.
Sigh, the power thing was a simple illustration of the fact that a
thing can often be represented a number of different ways.
How about acceleration is the first derivative of velocity and also
the second derivative of position? Do you like this example better?
Owen
--
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.