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.
|