Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Keith Dysart wrote:
You are certainly correct; many people believe in reflected power, though I've always found that to be a poor basis for my own beliefs. You have also provided the classic example where the numerology works and 'reverse power' offers a tidy explanation. I am sure this neat example is the basis for many people's belief. Belief has nothing to do with it. Observations suffice. If you have any doubt that EM radiation can be reflected, just look in a mirror. Did you need to 'believe' you saw your reflection to confirm your observation? What drove me to look at alternate explanations for these kinds of examples was that the 'reverse power' explanation fails miserably when the power gets back to the generator. Red Herring. There is no 'failure' in the accounting of reflected power. The observations and numbers work out quite nicely. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Keith wrote:
"Having another explanaton for this classic example lets one let go of "reverse power" which solves the challenges at the generator end." Bird says of its Model 43 Wattmeter: "Experience using the "Thruline" Wattmeter for transmitter tune-up, antenna matching, etc. (i.e. on operating problems), shows that the power ratio is as useful in practice as the VSWR." One can see reflected power disappear at the transmitter terminals as a match is made to the transmitter load. That eliminates stress on the transmitter from reverse power. Reverse power is as real as its Bird Wattmeter indication. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
On Mar 21, 1:32 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Belief has nothing to do with it. Observations suffice. If you have any doubt that EM radiation can be reflected, just look in a mirror. Did you need to 'believe' you saw your reflection to confirm your observation? I have yet to question the reflection of EM radiation, just the existence of "reverse power" in transmission lines. Red Herring. There is no 'failure' in the accounting of reflected power. The observations and numbers work out quite nicely. A simple example that I can never make add up is a 50 Watt generator with a 50 ohm output impedance, driving a 50 ohm line which is open at the end. Using the "reverse power" explanation, 50 W of "forward power" from the generator is reflected at the open end, providing 50 W of "reverse power". Since the generator is matched to the line there is no reflection when this "reverse power" reaches the generator so it disappears into the generator. If this is truly power, it must go somewhere else, be dissipated, transformed into some other form or stored (based on the conservation of energy principle). Where did it go? Most correspondents agree that what happens depends on the design of generator; dissipation either increases, decreases or stays the same (compared to when the line was terminated in 50 Ohms and the power going down the line is dissipated in the termination). This does not make an easy explanation for where that supposedly real power goes. Of course, if it is not real power, then there is no issue, which leads one back to looking for explanations other than "reverse power". ....Keith |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
On Mar 21, 3:06 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote: Bird says of its Model 43 Wattmeter: "Experience using the "Thruline" Wattmeter for transmitter tune-up, antenna matching, etc. (i.e. on operating problems), shows that the power ratio is as useful in practice as the VSWR." One can see reflected power disappear at the transmitter terminals as a match is made to the transmitter load. That eliminates stress on the transmitter from reverse power. I suggest that a more accurate description would read: "One can see the indication on meter go to zero at the transmitter terminals as the match is made to the transmitter load". The scale on the meter could be labelled "furlongs per fortnight" and this would still be true. After exploring alternative explanations for the various phenomena, the explorer will be ready to understand what a directional wattmeter really measures (as opposed to what its meter scale claims to indicate) and truly understand what inferences can be correctly made from its indications. Reverse power is as real as its Bird Wattmeter indication. I absolutely agree with this. ....Keith |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 21, 1:32 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote: Belief has nothing to do with it. Observations suffice. If you have any doubt that EM radiation can be reflected, just look in a mirror. Did you need to 'believe' you saw your reflection to confirm your observation? I have yet to question the reflection of EM radiation, just the existence of "reverse power" in transmission lines. Use of a TDR makes for a valid observation on the line. Red Herring. There is no 'failure' in the accounting of reflected power. The observations and numbers work out quite nicely. A simple example that I can never make add up is a 50 Watt generator with a 50 ohm output impedance, driving a 50 ohm line which is open at the end. Using the "reverse power" explanation, 50 W of "forward power" from the generator is reflected at the open end, providing 50 W of "reverse power". Since the generator is matched to the line there is no reflection when this "reverse power" reaches the generator so it disappears into the generator.... I explained this last week, albeit for a different reason. I'll paste: *** Hi Richard, He says it in the last sentence. But here is an example. Take a 50 ohm thevinin source. Power off, it looks like 50 ohms back into it. Take a second thevinin source to represent a reflection and drive 5 volts into the first source. Now set your first source 180 degrees to the reflection and drive forward 5 volts. (s)-----/\/\/\--------(c)-----/\/\/\--------(r) (s)source (c)connection (r)reflection. With (s) 180 degrees out of phase from (r), (r) will see a short at (c). It is because of the power generated at the source that the impedance into it can look purely reactive. And, you can use 5 ohms with 1 volt at the source, (c) will still look like a short to (r). The source resistance doesn't matter as long as a 'match' is made. And for the same reason, why the 50 ohm line doesn't look like 50 ohms is because of reflected power. Drive an open quarter wave line and it looks like a short because the reflected voltage is 180 degrees out from the source. *** If this is truly power, it must go somewhere else, be dissipated, transformed into some other form or stored (based on the conservation of energy principle). Where did it go? The energy is sitting on the line. It didn't disappear. See all the posts I made last week. Most correspondents agree that what happens depends on the design of generator; Actually, it doesn't. The exception is minor and pointed out in the case of a non linear source. dissipation either increases, decreases or stays the same (compared to when the line was terminated in 50 Ohms and the power going down the line is dissipated in the termination). This does not make an easy explanation for where that supposedly real power goes. Of course, if it is not real power, then there is no issue, which leads one back to looking for explanations other than "reverse power". The mistake is in assuming the energy must disappear. It doesn't. ...Keith Best, Dan. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 21, 3:06 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Bird says of its Model 43 Wattmeter: "Experience using the "Thruline" Wattmeter for transmitter tune-up, antenna matching, etc. (i.e. on operating problems), shows that the power ratio is as useful in practice as the VSWR." One can see reflected power disappear at the transmitter terminals as a match is made to the transmitter load. That eliminates stress on the transmitter from reverse power. I suggest that a more accurate description would read: "One can see the indication on meter go to zero at the transmitter terminals as the match is made to the transmitter load". Then, you have never matched with a reflection. Without the experience, how can you make a claim? You have not made the observation yet you claim what it 'should' be. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
"Keith Dysart" wrote in news:1174507951.363436.150330
@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: .... The scale on the meter could be labelled "furlongs per fortnight" and this would still be true. After exploring alternative explanations for the various phenomena, the explorer will be ready to understand what a directional wattmeter really measures (as opposed to what its meter scale claims to indicate) and truly understand what inferences can be correctly made from its indications. Keith, I drafted an article exploring the operation of a Breune type directional wattmeter, it is at http://www.vk1od.net/VSWR/VSWRMeter.htm . The Bird 43 responds in the same way, but from a different sampler construction. The article gives a simple derivation of the meter response, and deals with the legitimacy of scaling the instrument in Watts. If one takes measurements with the instrument, it is true that the power at a point is "forward power" less "reflected power", and the manufacturer has scaled the instrument in Watts to facilitate that calculation, but that does not imply that the value of "forward power" or "reflected power" has any stand alone value, the ratio of the two is meaningful, the difference of the two is meaningful, but one alone is meaningless. To illustrate the lack of stand-alone value of the "forward power" reading, one could place two such instruments, one calibrated for 50 ohm and another calibrated for 100 ohm in tandem at the tx, and then a load. The two instruments will indicate different "forward power" and different "reflected power". Notwithstanding the fact that the "forward power" and "reflected power" readings are each not of stand alone, the difference between "forward power" and "reflected power" has meaning and will be the same for each instrument. I agree with you that a lack of understanding of the instrument can be used to prop up bogus explanations and concepts, even leading to people citing the Bird 43 user manual like it was a respected and authoritative text. Owen |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Owen Duffy wrote in
: Notwithstanding the fact that the "forward power" and "reflected power" readings are each not of stand alone, the difference between "forward power" and "reflected power" has meaning and will be the same for each instrument. That reads better with the missing word supplied: Notwithstanding the fact that the "forward power" and "reflected power" readings are each not of stand alone meaning, the difference between "forward power" and "reflected power" has meaning and will be the same for each instrument. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
On Mar 21, 4:30 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: On Mar 21, 3:06 pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Bird says of its Model 43 Wattmeter: "Experience using the "Thruline" Wattmeter for transmitter tune-up, antenna matching, etc. (i.e. on operating problems), shows that the power ratio is as useful in practice as the VSWR." One can see reflected power disappear at the transmitter terminals as a match is made to the transmitter load. That eliminates stress on the transmitter from reverse power. I suggest that a more accurate description would read: "One can see the indication on the meter go to zero at the transmitter terminals as the match is made to the transmitter load". Then, you have never matched with a reflection. Without the experience, how can you make a claim? You have not made the observation yet you claim what it 'should' be. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that when Richard said "see reflected power disappear" he was observing the Bird Wattmeter mentioned in his previous paragraph and watching its indication go to zero. If this is not what was meant, then I need elaboration. Otherwise, I think I said the same as Richard in different (and, arguably more precise) words. ....Keith |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Would any poster in this thread who doesn't "believe in" reflected
power kindly explain how a transmission line can fail upstream of a serious mismatch anywhere along the the length of that line. If that doesn't result from the sum of forward and reflected voltage/current, then (IYO) what is the reason such failures? Don't think that this doesn't occur. I've seen it many times, and had to find and replace the molten and arced-over components that resulted. RF |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The power explanation | Antenna | |||
again a few words of explanation | General | |||
again a few words of explanation | Policy | |||
Explanation wanted | Antenna | |||
New ham needing explanation on radios | General |