![]() |
my SWR reading
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Richard Harrison wrote: Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "Have you ever measured such?" My Bird Model 43 Instruction book says: "---designed to measure power flow and load match in 50 ohm coaxial transmission lines." I`ve used it many times. Would you agree it is indirectly measuring joules/sec not watts/sec? That would be energy flow. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com actually, its not measure energy or power, its measuring voltage and current and presenting you with the result of a calculation that represents power. |
my SWR reading
"Richard Fry" wrote in message ... "Roy Lewallen" wrote: All the power produced by the transmitter arrives at the antenna less whatever is lost as heat in the transmission line. _________ Roy, If a transmitter produces r-f power, and a load connected to that transmitter via a transmission line dissipates any of that r-f power, then would you not agree that such an r-f transmission line conducts at least whatever r-f power is dissipated by that load? And if such a transmission line can conduct power in one direction (incident), it can also conduct power equally well in the opposite direction (reflected), until the net result of incident + reflected causes line failure. When the Zo of a transmission line matches the Zo of a load at its far end, then that far-end Z absorbs nearly 100% of the power delivered there by that transmission line. If those impedances are not matched, a reflection is generated that may lead to the real-world, destructive and periodic effects on the transmission line that I reported from personal experience, earlier in this thread. RF no transmission line conducts power. it conducts moving electrons which are measured as a current or voltage. power is a figment of our mathematics that has created a convenient way to take the current and/or voltage and/or impedance (only 2 of the 3 are needed) and convert them to a measure of energy flow, or power, that happens to be a nice conceptual way to view things. we could just as well give up all readings of power and state taht a transmitter produces 1 amp into a 50 ohm load instead of that it produces 50 watts... the former is more descriptive, the latter is simpler for the non-engineer. |
my SWR reading
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: In the standing wave model the energy simply sloshes back and forth within a single half-wave loop. No energy collisions; no problems at all. The problem is that it is impossible for EM waves to do that. An EM wave flows in one direction until it encounters a physical impedance discontinuity. It cannot "slosh back and forth" in reality. I guess you still cannot get over your fixation on traveling waves. Too bad; you miss so much when wearing blinders. 73, Gene W4SZ |
my SWR reading
Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote: Would you agree it is indirectly measuring joules/sec not watts/sec? That would be energy flow. actually, its not measure energy or power, its measuring voltage and current and presenting you with the result of a calculation that represents power. Like I said, it is indirectly measuring power - by sampling the voltage and current at a fixed point in a known Z0 environment and performing some in-phase and out-of-phase phasor additions. The point is that it is displaying watts at a *fixed* point, i.e. average joules flowing past a fixed point in one second. It is the joules that are flowing, not the watts. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
my SWR reading
Dave wrote:
power is a figment of our mathematics With EM waves, you can say the same thing about voltage and current. The energy in the photons has a much more basic relationship to reality. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
my SWR reading
Gene Fuller wrote:
I guess you still cannot get over your fixation on traveling waves. Too bad; you miss so much when wearing blinders. Sloshing EM energy is only a math shortcut which violates the laws of physics and exists only in your mind (and others). Traveling EM waves agree with the laws of physics and can be observed with one's own eyes. When math shortcuts become one's religion, one has a definite problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
my SWR reading
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: I guess you still cannot get over your fixation on traveling waves. Too bad; you miss so much when wearing blinders. Sloshing EM energy is only a math shortcut which violates the laws of physics and exists only in your mind (and others). Traveling EM waves agree with the laws of physics and can be observed with one's own eyes. When math shortcuts become one's religion, one has a definite problem. Cecil, I will not argue with you about mobile antenna shootouts. However, I will compare my physics education to yours any day. Which law(s) of physics do you think I have violated? 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
my SWR reading
"Roy Lewallen" wrote:
All the power produced by the transmitter arrives at the antenna less whatever is lost as heat in the transmission line. How about a case of a non-resonant transmission line whose Zo equals the load Z except for a discrete mismatch somewhere in the line? Reflections from that mismatch will be dissipated in the reverse port termination of a circulator installed at the input of the line. Clearly not all of the power available at the output of the circulator arrived at the antenna (less line loss). ..Unless the line is perfectly matched, there will be repeating points of high current and of high voltage. Depending on the nature of the conductor and insulator, either or both of these can cause localized heating. In the example you gave, the damage is almost certainly caused by high current rather than high voltage. ... I agree, and misunderstood your original post. RF |
my SWR reading
Gene Fuller wrote:
However, I will compare my physics education to yours any day. Which law(s) of physics do you think I have violated? "Sloshing" EM waves violates the conservation of momentum principle. What reverses the momentum of an EM wave at the point where it starts "sloshing" around when there is no physical impedance discontinuity? In terms of optics, how does light energy just start "sloshing" around in free space when there is no change in index of refraction in the medium? Given Hecht's equation for a light standing wave in free space, where are the terms that cause the "sloshing"? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
my SWR reading
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote: However, I will compare my physics education to yours any day. Which law(s) of physics do you think I have violated? "Sloshing" EM waves violates the conservation of momentum principle. What reverses the momentum of an EM wave at the point where it starts "sloshing" around when there is no physical impedance discontinuity? In terms of optics, how does light energy just start "sloshing" around in free space when there is no change in index of refraction in the medium? Given Hecht's equation for a light standing wave in free space, where are the terms that cause the "sloshing"? Cecil, That's a good one. I did not know that a transmission line is "free space". Try again. 73, Gene W4SZ |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com