Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Convert reflection coefficient to Z | Antenna | |||
Reflection Coefficient | Antenna | |||
Uses of Reflection Coefficient Bridges. | Antenna | |||
Reflection Coefficient Challenge Solved | Antenna | |||
Derivation of the Reflection Coefficient? | Antenna |