Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
On Apr 13, 11:49 pm, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote: Please let me emphasize again that not I or anyone else who has posted is disputing the validity of your matching methods or the utility of the "virtual short" concept. The only disagreement is in the contention that the "virtual short" actually *effects* reflections rather than being solely a consequence of them. The key word there is "utility" - the virtual short/open concept is *useful* as a short-cut in our thinking. But concepts are only useful if they help us to think more clearly about physical reality; and short-cuts are dangerous if they don't reliably bring us back onto the main track. .... Indeed. I was thinking about this in terms of short-cuts before reading Ian's post. What if you take a short-cut and it just takes you off into the woods? I'm not sure my posting about this made it into the thread in an intelligible way. (I fear Google may have sent it off on a "short-cut.") The gist of it was that, although there are examples where considering points an even number of half-waves from a short as being shorts themselves work fine, there are plenty of counter examples too. I fear that people new to the use of stubs will be lulled into a false sense of security using that concept, when indeed it fails miserably at times. Especially in this age of computers and readily available programs to deal with lines, INCLUDING their loss, why would I use a concept that may take me on a short-cut that turns out to be the long way around? What IS useful to me about the concept is NOT the calculation of the performance of a particular network of stubs, but rather in coming up with the trial design to test with full calculations. My example was the use of two stubs to give me a null on one frequency and pass another frequency; I can get a null by putting a "virtual short" at that frequency, and that's a line that's a half wave long on that frequency, shorted at the other end. But on a slightly lower frequency, it looks capacitive, so I can put another stub that's inductive in parallel with it to create an open circuit at the frequency I want to let pass. THEN I pull out the calculations with line attenuation included, and discover that in some situations it works fine, and in others, the performance is terrible. It's a useful visualization tool and design aid; it's a poor analysis tool at best. At worst, it will lull you into building something that just won't work, wasting time and resources. Cheers, Tom |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stub Matching software ? | Antenna | |||
Analyzing Woger | General | |||
Analyzing Woger | Policy | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to | Antenna |