"Jeff" wrote in
.com:

How can that be? If the meter is basically a directional coupler then
the forward power is just that. Subtracting any reflected power will
just give a stupid answer. The only errors will be due to the
directivity of the coupler, which will give a band of uncertainty
which varies with VSWR, and the error due to the accuracy of the
detectors.

My Bird does not subtract any reflected power to give a forward power
reading!! It can't I need to rotate the slug to read reverse power.

Jeff, without commenting on whether Cecil's assertions are right or
wrong, you seem to have some misconceptions about what is measured with
your Bird (presumably 43).

The so called "forward power" and "reflected power" are notional values,
but not actual power "components". The only power is the average rate at
which energy passes a point, and it is in one direction or the other.

In fact the power can be calculated taking "forward power" minus
"reflected power", but only in the case where the sampler is calibrated
for Zo being real (as it is in a Bird 43).

My article at http://www.vk1od.net/VSWR/VSWRMeter.htm describes the
operation of a Bruene type of VSWR meter and discusses the power
measurement issue. Though the sampler in the Bird is different to the
Bruene sampler, the Bird samples V and I in a very small region (
regarded a point ) and sums them in the same way as the Bruene circuit.

Owen

The so called "forward power" and "reflected power" are notional values,
but not actual power "components". The only power is the average rate at
which energy passes a point, and it is in one direction or the other.

I am sorry, but I disagree, forward power is real and can be measured, or if
you wish separated out with a circulator or isolator. What you are
describing could be called 'transmitted' power or power delivered into a
mismatched load, but that it different from forward power, or the power
delivered by the source.

73
Jeff

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:25:10 -0000, "Jeff" wrote:

I am sorry, but I disagree

Hi Jeff,

Your appologies aside, it is the convention you are disagreeing with.
The injection of such terminology as
'transmitted' power
is not part of conventional usage in this discussion. The trap here
of inventing terms is that your term would not account for Ohmic loss
as either forward or reverse power in the balance sheet (and this loss
could well be the source of mismatch); and yet this loss would have a
definite impact on what is "transmitted."

A simple instance proves this. Add a 14 Ohm resistor in series at the
feed to a perfect quarterwave radiator. The reverse reading would be
nada, the forward reading would NOT be "transmitted" power. Further,
the conventional usage of terms seen in this thread would still be
accurate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

" Your appologies aside, it is the convention you are disagreeing with.

I think that most engineers would disagree, what you are describing is the
power delivered into the load, both forward and reverse power exist both by
convention and as a real entity.

The injection of such terminology as
'transmitted' power
is not part of conventional usage in this discussion.

Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part, I sould have said 'power
transmitted to the load'; I was not implying radiated power.

73
Jeff

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:10:42 -0000, "Jeff" wrote:

what you are describing is the
power delivered into the load,

Hi Jeff,

Perhaps you should re-read your original complaint.

Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part

So it would seem. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jeff wrote:
Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part, I sould have said 'power
transmitted to the load'; I was not implying radiated power.

Indeed, "transmitted power" could simply mean power
from the transmitter, i.e. "source power".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Jeff" wrote in
.com:

The so called "forward power" and "reflected power" are notional
values, but not actual power "components". The only power is the
average rate at which energy passes a point, and it is in one
direction or the other.

I am sorry, but I disagree, forward power is real and can be measured,
or if you wish separated out with a circulator or isolator. What you
are describing could be called 'transmitted' power or power delivered
into a mismatched load, but that it different from forward power, or
the power delivered by the source.

Jeff,

You dropped a number of terms he
- 'transmitted' power;
- power delivered into a mismatched load;
- forward power;
- power delivered by the source;

The power delivered to a load (of any kind) from a lossless transmission
line section, is the same as the power delivered by the source. In the
case of the lossy line, then the line characteristics and load impedance
also need to be taken into account to calculate the power lost in the
line section, and it is not as simple as using up a dB/100' rating in a
table (unless the line is matched).

You assertion that you have travelling forward and reflected power waves
on the transmission line runs into a problem when you try to analyse the
combination of both at a point (eg the input to the line) as power
doesn't combine vectorially.

When you devise configurations with circulators, isolaters, directional
couplers, hybrids etc to "trap and reroute" reflected power, you have
probably changed the nature of the load on a line section and that
accounts for why the reflected power seems to have been isolated from
forward power.

Owen

"
The power delivered to a load (of any kind) from a lossless transmission
line section, is the same as the power delivered by the source.

So it is your contention that power is not reflected at a mismatch. The wave
certainly is so the power contained in the reflected portion must be as
well.

You assertion that you have travelling forward and reflected power waves
on the transmission line runs into a problem when you try to analyse the
combination of both at a point (eg the input to the line) as power
doesn't combine vectorially.

I was not trying to analyse the combination of any wave on the line ("power"
waves, whatever they may be, or anything else), I was merely noting that you
can quantify and measure the power contained the both the forward and
reflected waves and they are real quantities.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
I was not trying to analyse the combination of any wave on the line ("power"
waves, whatever they may be, or anything else), I was merely noting that you
can quantify and measure the power contained the both the forward and
reflected waves and they are real quantities.

The joules/sec are real quantities but whether joules/sec
is power depends upon the definition of "power". Some say
the joules/sec in a reflected wave is not power and they
produce a definition of "power" from a physics book to
prove it, i.e. no work done. To satisfy the purists you
may need to change your statement to: "I was merely noting
that you can quantify and measure the joules/sec contained
in both the forward and reflected waves and they are real
quantities."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
The joules/sec are real quantities but whether joules/sec
is power depends upon the definition of "power".

In our case here on the internet, it depends on whether or not you
choose to equate 'units of power' with the definition of power.

73 ac6xg