View Single Post
  #35   Report Post  
Old March 21st 07, 11:20 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Richard Fry Richard Fry is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 440
Default Revisiting the Power Explanation

"Owen Duffy" wrote
None of these explanations require designating "reflected power"
at a point, or implying that it is the energy in "reflected power"
that is totally and solely responsible for the physical damage.

___________

I guess you are relying on the fact that there will be no reflected r-f
voltage/
current if there is no incident voltage/current? And no argument, there.

But of course, it is the vector sum of ALL of these that may cause the
transmission line/network/tx failure(s) mentioned in my relevant posts
in this thread.

And so that does NOT prove that reflected power/voltage/current
does not exist, or is unimportant in an r-f system design.

The specifications of a transmission line or other r-f network or circuit
can be chosen with due engineering care to be rated for a defined incident
power applied to a load with a given mismatch to a specific Zo, and with
respect to the carrier frequency, the modulation thereon, the ambient air
temperature/pressure, solar illumination, line pressurization, and other
operating parameters.

These realities are commonly recogniz(s)ed and incorporated by most
commercial designers/evaluators of r-f transmission systems, and as a result
pose no significant problems to them and/or their clients.

But none of this means that r-f reflections do not, may not, or can not
exist -- whether in "ham" systems, or otherwise.

RF

PS: Please edit my email address in replies here so that
it can't accurately be picked up by spammers. I get enough
spam already. Gracias.