Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 05:07 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,374
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote in
:

... The reader can
also see that more power is present on the transmission line than is
delivered to the load.


The notion that "power is present" is a different one.

Owen


It's reasonable, though. Looking at demo 4 with the TLVis1 program, you
can see that there's power all along the line except at specific nodal
points (where I or V is always zero), yet there's no power at all being
delivered to the load.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 05:32 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,169
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13pirk5h1cpt4f5
@corp.supernews.com:

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote in
:

... The reader can
also see that more power is present on the transmission line than is
delivered to the load.


The notion that "power is present" is a different one.

Owen


It's reasonable, though. Looking at demo 4 with the TLVis1 program, you
can see that there's power all along the line except at specific nodal
points (where I or V is always zero), yet there's no power at all being
delivered to the load.


Roy, my though was that on anything but a lossless line with VSWR=1,
instantaneous power (being the rate of flow of energy) varies with time
and location, so to make the statement that "power is present" and to
quantitatively compare it with the power at a point (being the end of the
line where the load is attached) seems to not be so reasonable.

If the statement is about average power in both cases, then it is
reasonable, obvious even, that power decreases with distance from the
source.

Perhaps "power is present" is an avoidance of the somewhat tautological
form "power flows to the load".

Owen
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 06:14 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Owen Duffy wrote:
Perhaps "power is present" is an avoidance of the somewhat tautological
form "power flows to the load".


Want to muddy the waters even more? Ramo & Whinnery say:
"Another very important case is that of a perfect conductor,
which by definition must have a zero tangential component
of electric field at its surface. Then ^P^ [Poynting vector]
can have no component normal to the conductor and there can
be no power flow through the perfect conductor."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 04:08 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 95
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:32:33 GMT
Owen Duffy wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13pirk5h1cpt4f5
@corp.supernews.com:

Owen Duffy wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote in
:

... The reader can
also see that more power is present on the transmission line than is
delivered to the load.

The notion that "power is present" is a different one.

Owen


It's reasonable, though. Looking at demo 4 with the TLVis1 program, you
can see that there's power all along the line except at specific nodal
points (where I or V is always zero), yet there's no power at all being
delivered to the load.


Roy, my though was that on anything but a lossless line with VSWR=1,
instantaneous power (being the rate of flow of energy) varies with time
and location, so to make the statement that "power is present" and to
quantitatively compare it with the power at a point (being the end of the
line where the load is attached) seems to not be so reasonable.

If the statement is about average power in both cases, then it is
reasonable, obvious even, that power decreases with distance from the
source.

Perhaps "power is present" is an avoidance of the somewhat tautological
form "power flows to the load".

Owen


Nothing mysterious was hinted with the words "power is present".

As I finished writing the post, I wanted to call attention to the assumption that the reflected power is true power and adds to the amount of energy "stored" on the transmission line. But "stored" is a word that implies static conditions, and static conditions are not found on a transmission line. So I substituted "present" for "stored.

73, Roger, W7WKB


  #5   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 04:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Roger Sparks wrote:
As I finished writing the post, I wanted to call attention to the assumption that the reflected power is true power and adds to the amount of energy "stored" on the transmission line. But "stored" is a word that implies static conditions, and static conditions are not found on a transmission line. So I substituted "present" for "stored.


The amount of energy existing in a transmission
line is exactly the amount required to support
the measured forward power and reflected power.

If the steady-state forward power is 200 watts,
the reflected power is 100 watts, and the lossless
transmission line is one microsecond long, it
contains 300 microjoules of energy. I don't
think that is a sheer coincidence. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 07:22 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 95
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:15:33 GMT
Cecil Moore wrote:

Roger Sparks wrote:
As I finished writing the post, I wanted to call attention to the assumption that the reflected power is true power and adds to the amount of energy "stored" on the transmission line. But "stored" is a word that implies static conditions, and static conditions are not found on a transmission line. So I substituted "present" for "stored.


The amount of energy existing in a transmission
line is exactly the amount required to support
the measured forward power and reflected power.

If the steady-state forward power is 200 watts,
the reflected power is 100 watts, and the lossless
transmission line is one microsecond long, it
contains 300 microjoules of energy. I don't
think that is a sheer coincidence. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


Yep, and if we quickly replaced the source with a termination having the impedance of the transmission line, 100 watts of power would continue to be delivered to the load for one microsecond, delivering 100 microjoules of energy. 100 watts of power would be delivered to the reflected wave termination for two microseconds, delivering 200 microjoules of energy.

The transmission line was a dynamic power storage device for two microseconds after the power source was disconnected.

73, Roger, W7WKB




  #7   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 09:18 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Roger Sparks wrote:
If the steady-state forward power is 200 watts,
the reflected power is 100 watts, and the lossless
transmission line is one microsecond long, it
contains 300 microjoules of energy. I don't
think that is a sheer coincidence. :-)


Yep, and if we quickly replaced the source with a termination having the impedance of the transmission line, 100 watts of power would continue to be delivered to the load for one microsecond, delivering 100 microjoules of energy. 100 watts of power would be delivered to the reflected wave termination for two microseconds, delivering 200 microjoules of energy.


Can we consider the old wives' tale of no energy in reflected
waves to be laid to rest?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 10:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 492
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

On Jan 25, 11:15*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote:
As I finished writing the post, I wanted to call attention to the assumption that the reflected power is true power and adds to the amount of energy "stored" on the transmission line. * But "stored" is a word that implies static conditions, and static conditions are not found on a transmission line. *So I substituted "present" for "stored.


The amount of energy existing in a transmission
line is exactly the amount required to support
the measured forward power and reflected power.

If the steady-state forward power is 200 watts,
the reflected power is 100 watts, and the lossless
transmission line is one microsecond long, it
contains 300 microjoules of energy.


Are you sure?

Check your answer by trying 100 kHz sinusoidal
steady-state excitation.

Even easier, ignore the reflected power and
test your assertion just for the forward power.

For fun, work out the line lengths for which your
claim is true.

...Keith
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 25th 08, 10:31 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

Keith Dysart wrote:
Check your answer by trying 100 kHz sinusoidal
steady-state excitation.


Good grief, Keith, get real. I guess I forgot to
say the assertion was for an integer multiple of MHz.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 26th 08, 03:19 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 492
Default Derivation of Reflection Coefficient vs SWR

On Jan 25, 5:31*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Check your answer by trying 100 kHz sinusoidal
steady-state excitation.


Good grief, Keith, get real. I guess I forgot to
say the assertion was for an integer multiple of MHz.


Yes, so it would seem.

And that would seem to narrow the applicability
of the original assertion rather severely.

...Keith


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Convert reflection coefficient to Z Wayne Antenna 30 April 7th 07 04:01 AM
Reflection Coefficient Reg Edwards Antenna 1 June 19th 05 06:50 PM
Uses of Reflection Coefficient Bridges. Richard Harrison Antenna 0 September 18th 03 09:26 AM
Reflection Coefficient Challenge Solved Richard Harrison Antenna 5 September 12th 03 08:25 PM
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? Dr. Slick Antenna 104 September 6th 03 02:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017