Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Dr. Honeydew wrote:
Clearly the 40 ohm load dissipates more power than the 50 ohm load, so we don't see how your answer and Mr. Harrison's posting can both be correct. It appears that the internal resistance of the Thevenin equivalent circuit was chosen to be ~1 ohm. Maximum power transfer of ~13 watts should occur when the load is ~1 ohm and the current is ~3.6 amps with ~3.6 volts across the 1 ohm load and across the ~1 ohm generator impedance. How one gets 13 watts out of a source rated for one watt is a non-linear physical design problem, not a linear theory problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
On Mar 23, 11:05 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Your example assumes that the reflected power will see the 50 ohms of the generator. And I had shown you a condition where it will see a short no mater what the 'output' impedance of the generator. Truly, we have found the root of the disconnect. Kindly compute the reflection coefficient at the connection where a 50 Ohm line is driving a 75 Ohm line. For your convenience, recall that RC = (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1). Now redo the same, except that the 75 Ohm line is one-half wavelength long terminated in a short. If you get the same answer, then you will see why the reflected voltage in the example does not encounter a discontinuity at the entrance to the generator and is therefore not re-reflected. If you get a different answer, then some study of reflection coefficient is in order. ....Keith |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Keith Dysart wrote:
Truly, we have found the root of the disconnect. Truly, we have but it is not what you think. A source doesn't obey the passive reflection rules. The V/I ratio encountered within a source is *active*, not passive. Active V/I ratios can and do cause reflections. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Cecil Moore wrote:
Reflected power doing damage is an overly simplistic way of viewing things. The reflected wave is capable of causing damage without giving up any of its energy. It is not the energy in the reflected wave, per se, that causes the damage. It is the interference pattern established by superposition of the forward wave and the reflected wave that causes the damage. If the reflected voltage arrives back at the source in phase with the forward voltage, that constructive voltage interference can cause an over-voltage condition that blows the finals. This over-voltage condition actually reduces the dissipation in the finals because it is accompanied by a destructive interference, reduced-current condition. The finals are actually cooler than normal when the over-voltage begins to fry them. Cecil, Ya know, it is possible to simply add and subtract voltages. It is not required to determine an "interference pattern". Solid state electronics are damaged by high voltage or high power dissipation (or both). No "interference patterns" required. Perhaps the manufacturers could add exactly the correct length of transmission line inside the transceivers so that the wrong kind of interference could never occur at the finals. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Cecil Moore wrote:
[snip] Since the generator is not delivering any power and there is a forward power and a reflected power, the reflected power is supplying the forward power, i.e. being 100% re-reflected. The re-reflection is associated with total destructive interference toward the generator and total constructive interference toward the load. Anything else violates the conservation of energy principle. Cecil, You have highlighted a really useful mathematical aid. Namely, include the desired answer as a basic condition for setting up the problem, and the proof becomes easy. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Gene Fuller wrote:
Ya know, it is possible to simply add and subtract voltages. It is not required to determine an "interference pattern". It is absolutely necessary to understand the interference patterns if one wants to track the energy through the system. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Gene Fuller wrote:
Namely, include the desired answer as a basic condition for setting up the problem, and the proof becomes easy. Yep, no need to make up new laws of physics to explain things that obviously follow the old laws of physics. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: Truly, we have found the root of the disconnect. Truly, we have but it is not what you think. A source doesn't obey the passive reflection rules. The V/I ratio encountered within a source is *active*, not passive. Active V/I ratios can and do cause reflections. Well said. Thanks, Dan. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Power Explanation
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:59:20 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:55:40 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:18:14 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote: "Walter Maxwell" wrote (RF): And if so, would that also mean that such a tx would not be prone to producing r-f intermodulation components when external signals are fed back into the tx from co-sited r-f systems? This issue is irrelevant, because the signals arriving from a co-sited system would not be coherent with the local source signals, while load- reflected signals are coherent. The destructive and constructive interference that occurs at the output of a correctly loaded and tuned PA requires coherence of the source and reflected waves to achieve the total re-reflection of the reflected waves back into the direction toward the load. Hi Walt, It is not irrelevant, merely illustrative of the concept of reflection that is consistent with a coherent source. Your points of phase are the sine non quo to the discussion, but all too often arguers only take the half of the 360 degrees available to argue a total solution. Even more often, they take only one or two degrees of the 360. Richard, it's been my observation that many of those who argue are clueless concerning the phase relationships required to obtain the destructive and constructive interference that achieves the re-reflection of the reflected waves. A reflection resulting from a discontinuity in the path of a signal delivered by a souce is guaranteed to be coherent with the source wave. If there is no coherence between the reflected wave and the source wave there may be an interference, but none of the type that results in total destructive and constructive interference relevant to impedance matching. I don't understand what you mean by 'taking only one of two degrees of the 360.' But even for coherent reflections, if the PA tank circuit has very low loss for incident power (which it does), why does it not have ~ equally low loss for load reflections of that power? Such would mean that load reflections would pass through the tank to appear at the output element of the PA, where they can add to its normal power dissipation. The paragraph above seems to me to imply that RF doesn't understand the destructive and constructive interference phenomena involved with re-reflection. This is the symmetry of the illustration of external signals. You used external signals yourself as part of your case study; hence the relevance has been made by you. Whoa, Richard! You'll have to point out where I've discussed external signals in any case study involving phase relationships between forward and reflected waves. I've never done so knowingly. Also, does not the result of combining the incident and reflected waves in the tx depend in large part on the r-f phase of the reflection there relative to the r-f phase of the incident wave? And the r-f phase of the reflection is governed mostly by the number of electrical wavelengths of transmission line between the load reflection and the plane of interest/concern -- which is independent of how the tx has been tuned/loaded. And we return to the sine non quo for the discussion: phase. That's true, but although RF apparently realizes that the phase relationship is relevant, he doesn't seem to understand the details of the phase requirements that achieve the necessary interferences that accomplish the impedance matching. If the ham transmitter designs that your paper applies to produce a total re-reflection of reverse power seen at their output tank circuits, then there would be no particular need for "VSWR foldback" circuits to protect them. Yet I believe these circuits are fairly common in ham transmitters, aren't they? They certainly are universal in modern AM/FM/TV broadcast transmitters, and are the result of early field experience where PA tubes, tx output networks, and the transmission line between the tx and the antenna could arc over and/or melt when reflected power was sufficiently high. RF Richard, your statement above begs the question, "Are you aware of the phase relationships between forward and reflected voltages and between forward and reflected currrents that accomplish the impedance-matching effect at matching points such as with stub matching and also with antenna tuners? It seems he is on the face of it, doesn't it? Afterall, he is quite explicit to this in the statement you are challenging. No Richard, I don't believe he is. I don't see the 'explicitness' you seem to find. It's the complete lack of the explicitness that makes me believe he doesn't quite get it. When the matching is accomplished the phase relationship between the foward and reflected voltages can become either 0° or 180°, resulting in a total re-reflection of the voltage. If the resultant voltage is 0°, then the resultant current is 180°, thus voltage sees a virtual open circuit and the current sees a virtual short circuit. The result is that the reflected voltage and current are totally re-reflected IN PHASE with the source voltage and current. This is the reason the forward power in the line is greater than the source power when the line is mismatched at the load, but where the matching device has re-reflected the reflected waves. Nothing here contradicts anything either of you have to say. True, but RF just hasn't said it all, because, as I said above, I don't believe he understands the details of the phase requirements to achieve the match. This phenomenon occurs in all tube transmitters in the ham world when the tank circuit is adjusted for delivering all available power at a given drive level. This introduces the two concepts of the "need for match" and the "match obtained." They are related only through an action that spans from one condition to the other. They do not describe the same condition, otherwise no one would ever need to perform the match: I don't comprehend your statements in the paragraph above. When this condition occurs the adjustment of the pi-network has caused the relationship between the forward and reflected voltages to be either 0° or 180° and vice versa for currents, as explained above. When this condition occurs, destructive interference between the forward and reflected voltages, as well as between the forward and reflected currents, causes the reflected voltage and current to cancel. However, due to the conservation of energy, the reflected voltage and current cannot just disappear, so the resulting constructive interference following immediately, causes the reflected voltage and current to be reversed in direction, now going in the foward direction along with and in phase with the forward voltage and current. If a tree were to fall onto the antenna, a new mismatch would occur. Would the transmitter faithfully meet the expectations of the Ham unaware of the accident? No, reflected (0-179 degrees) energy would undoubtedly offer a 50% chance of excitement in the shack. The consequences of dissipation would be quite evident on that occasion. For the other 180 (180-359) degrees of benign combination; then perhaps not. If a tree were to fall onto the antenna the new mismatch would surely detune the transmitter, causing unwanted dissipation, of course, but only a lid would fail to retune the transmitter before removing the tree. In transmitters with tubes and a pi-network output coupling circuit there is no 'fold back' circuitry to protect the amp, because none is needed, due to the total re-reflection of the reflected power. That would more probably be due to cost averse buying habits of the Amateur community, and the explicit assumption of risk by them to react appropriately in the face of mismatch. Tubes were far more resilient to these incidents than transistors of yore. It is only in solid-state transmitters that have no circuitry to achieve destructive and constructive interference that requires fold back to protect the output transistors. They too have access to the services of a transmatch that is probably more flexible than the tubes' final. If they didn't use a tuner, then the foldback would render many opportunistic antennas as useless. Again, as a cost item, this solution (fold-back) is dirt cheap and was driven by the market economies of a more onerous and costly repair through a lengthy bench time to replace the transistor (which has an exceedingly high probability of a quicker failure for a poor job). IMHO, Richard, the mfgrs of solid-state rigs with no means of matching the output to a load other than 50 ohms short changed the ham, thus requiring him to be satisfied with the power fold back, or buy an antenna tuner. Walt, W2DU |
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 |