RadioBanter - View Single Post

walt · May 13th 11, 10:44 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On May 13, 5:39*pm, walt wrote:
On May 13, 4:09*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 11, 3:09*pm, walt wrote:

Cecil, you are correct!!!

Thanks Walt, it would be interesting to see what else about which I am
correct. W7EL has a food-for-thought publication with one section
about reflections from the source. His source has a 50 ohm source
impedance, by design, so any dynamic load pulling experiment should
result in zero reflections from the source. Question is, does it?

http://eznec.com/misc/Food_for_thought.pdf

The "forward and reverse power section" is at the bottom of the page.
Using the dynamic load pulling method, do the results always indicate
50 ohms for the source impedance no matter what is the load and/or the
transmission line length? If not, the method yields invalid results.

IMO, it is a gross error to presume that all redistribution of energy
is a result of reflections. In W7EL's example, there are no
reflections from the source yet it is obvious that energy is being
redistributed from the source back toward the load in some cases but
not in other cases. IMO, destructive/constructive interference must be
taken into account in order to explain the results. Yet, no one except
yours truly has even mentioned interference effects as a method of
redistributing energy.

Anyone interested in understanding the role of interference at
impedance discontinuities in transmission lines is welcome to read my
article at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com
"Halitosis is better than no breath at all.", Don, KE6AJH/SK

Right on, Cecil. The article you URL'ed is the most clear and accurate
paraphrasing of my presentation of the subject in 'Reflections'.
Nowhere else is the subject clearly defined concerning destructive and
constructive interference in relation to impedance matching and 100%
re-reflection. I hope RF engineers everywhere can realize that optics
and RF are indeed using the same principles of electromagnetics, and
therefore follow exactly the same rules.

However, I would like for you to add one more reference to your
article, an article I published in QEX that proves Steve Best's QEX
three articles wrong. It appeared in the Jul/Aug 2004 issue, entitled,
"A tutorial Dispelling Certain Misconceptions Concerning Wave
Interference In Impedance Matching."

Let me know here whether you have a copy of my QEX article. If not,
I'll email you a copy.

Walt, W2DU

If anyone else on this thread would like a copy of my QEX article
please let me know by email. My email address is shown above.

Sorry guys, my error, my email address is .

Walt