Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On 24 mayo, 19:33, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:23:59 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: Regarding that output impedance of a rig be quite near to 50+j0 I think that depends on the concrete design; such a condition is not necessary and in my opinion neither optimal. Hi Miguel, Problems arise from qualitative statements or questions instead of quantitative statements or questions.output impedance of a rig be quite near to 50+j0 is a quantitative fact (depending upon the qualitative "near"). *A fact can be measured and compared by in dependant and objective means.in my opinion neither optimal is a qualitative judgment. *A judgment is only as authoritative as is the authority making it - and even then it comes at a discount. *We get many judgments here by folks with little authority (and such judgments are usually adorned with anti-authority messages). I have measured the characteristic Z of my two transistorized HF rigs by different methods that agree in their results. *I have also measured the Z of active loads that employ the same circuitry found in power sources. *The values of Z for my HF rigs wander from 35 Ohms to 75 Ohms. *The variation is a function of 1. frequency; 2. power; 3. which of the two is being measured. What is notable, for those values that are furthest from 50 Ohms (the design goal), my rigs experience issues (instabilities, poor efficiency, distortion...). The variation by frequency is found at the margins (at the ends of the HF band). * The variation by power is found in inabilities to maintain a constant power deliver in every band - which weakly correlates to Z offset from 50. *Variation by power also defines Z. *Low power operation is not going to give you a 50 Ohm source (the manufacturer designs Z for rated power). The variation by set is due to different capabilities: *one set is capable of 150W, and the other 100W; thus the first is more robust. As these variations of Z are not remarkable, trying to turn them into quantitative efficiency results are speculative at best (common designs are not optimal by any stretch when you add in the complication of modes). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard: As I understand = "output impedance of a rig be near to 50+j0" it is not a cuantitative fact except when it refers to specific study objects, obvously not all study objects (transmitters) will necessarily share those numbers. I think a good general cuantitative assertion would be for example, "all the rig on the market gives near 50 +j0, Zout". I am not deny that experimental fact... When I say "in my opinion" I am just not giving a formal hipothesis or theory and I quite understand technical and logical limitations of such words (for that I use them) Certainly I am definiteley not an authoritative guy on any matter :( (I'm so sorry Richard, although theory of knowledge is a topic of my interest I am not in conditions of discussing about it in a (for me) foreign language :( ) I saw some of this topics discussed time ago in this newsgroup and it was not my intention to return to them because I know they motivated good ponderings and respectfully points of view in its moment. PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to ask it) 73 Miguel Ghezzi LU6ETJ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to ask it) Hi Miguel, I presume by "original question" you mean: On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: żAbsorb the reflected power or amortiguate the effects of variyng load impedance? The answer is YES. Now, if you mean by absorb that all absorbtion results in heat, then the answer is NO. If you mean by absorb that all energy is combined in a load, then the answer is YES. The difference between YES and NO is the PHASE differences of the two energies that are combined. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On 25 mayo, 03:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to ask it) Hi Miguel, I presume by "original question" you mean: On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: żAbsorb the reflected power or amortiguate the effects of variyng load impedance? The answer is YES. Now, if you mean by absorb that all absorbtion results in heat, then the answer is NO. If you mean by absorb that all energy is combined in a load, then the answer is YES. The difference between YES and NO is the PHASE differences of the two energies that are combined. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi all First the first: Sorry Szczepan, do not feel upset I wanted to say "Me" don't go off topic with my own answers, not you. Very interesting comments! I think we must agree on meaning of words and basement concepts employed to discuss these matters, otherwise we end up talking about different "things" (Babel curse what confuses our tongues). If we do not agree with meaning of, for example, "interaction", how can we reach an agreement on much more complex things that depend on this word/concept? This is not a criticism to anyone, is only my point of view about what I think is a partial source of apparently irreductible positions in the group. I believe Richard, K1TTT and me, have sinchronized minds about "Interaction" word/concept meaning. I suppose must be a more deep underlying assumptios that make it possible. However I believe I understand the "idea" underlying Cecil concept about "interaction" and I believe I can "see" his point, To me, Cecil's interaction concept it is a very common idea, I do not think Cecil be a "hard to die" man :) I think we have to do our more honest efforts to sinchronize ideas. I do not want to go off topic, but let me bring a couple of thinkings to the table (they are not mine). * Students come into our classrooms with an established world-view, formed by years of prior experience and learning. * Even as it evolves, a student's world-view filters all experiences and affects their interpretation of observations. * Students are emotionally attached to their world-views and will not give up their world-views easily. * Challenging, revising, and restructuring one's world-view requires much effort. (from http://srri.umass.edu/topics/constructivism) Why these above things would not happen to me? ...... Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of A added to B? Another question to clarify my undestanding of your propositions: do you see waves interacting themselves in a discontinuity, or you see them interacting with the discontinuity? or both phenomena at the same time?. Change discontinuity for load and please tell me. Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing to causal relations? I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena? Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead "analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real (my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a true methaphor or an analogy? Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models, (mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's "analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world? These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic- realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston", slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :) K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please, tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence? 73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
"lu6etj" wrote ... Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead "analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real (my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a true methaphor or an analogy? Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not work... then, ciao analogy..!, Radio waves and sound are in full analogy. K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please, tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence? Waves always travel (pressure or voltage pulses). If the wave interact with the reflected one than the places where the pressures/voltages change are standing. The reflected wave cam be weaker if the mirror is partialy transparent (or if an absorbtion take place). S* 73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Jun 1, 5:52*am, lu6etj wrote:
On 25 mayo, 03:35, Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to ask it) Hi Miguel, I presume by "original question" you mean: On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote: żAbsorb the reflected power or amortiguate the effects of variyng load impedance? The answer is YES. Now, if you mean by absorb that all absorbtion results in heat, then the answer is NO. If you mean by absorb that all energy is combined in a load, then the answer is YES. The difference between YES and NO is the PHASE differences of the two energies that are combined. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi all First the first: Sorry Szczepan, do not feel upset *I wanted to say "Me" don't go off topic with my own answers, not you. Very interesting comments! I think we must agree on meaning of words and basement concepts employed to discuss these matters, otherwise we end up talking about different "things" (Babel curse what confuses our tongues). If we do not agree with meaning of, for example, "interaction", how can we reach an agreement on much more complex things that depend on this word/concept? This is not a criticism to anyone, is only my point of view about what I think is a partial source of apparently irreductible positions in the group. I believe Richard, K1TTT and me, have sinchronized minds about "Interaction" word/concept meaning. I suppose must be a more deep underlying assumptios that make it possible. However I believe I understand the "idea" underlying Cecil concept about "interaction" and I believe I can "see" his point, To me, Cecil's interaction concept it is a very common idea, I do not think Cecil be a "hard to die" man :) I think we have to do our more honest efforts to sinchronize ideas. I do not want to go off topic, but let me bring a couple of thinkings to the table (they are not mine). * Students come into our classrooms with an established world-view, formed by years of prior experience and learning. * Even as it evolves, a student's world-view filters all experiences and affects their interpretation of observations. * Students are emotionally attached to their world-views and will not give up their world-views easily. * Challenging, revising, and restructuring one's world-view requires much effort. (fromhttp://srri.umass.edu/topics/constructivism) Why these above things would not happen to me? ..... Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of A added to B? Another question to clarify my undestanding of your propositions: do you see waves interacting themselves in a discontinuity, or you see them interacting with the discontinuity? or both phenomena at the same time?. Change discontinuity for load and please tell me. Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing to causal relations? I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena? Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead "analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real (my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a true methaphor or an analogy? Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models, (mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's "analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world? These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic- realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston", slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :) K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please, tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence? 73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ in this context figment=product. often used to describe something that is a result of an over active imagination. the only reason you can see standing waves is because a measurement or observation makes them look like they are 'standing' when it is really the interaction of two or more regular traveling waves. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Jun 1, 12:52*am, lu6etj wrote:
Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of A added to B? Of course, there are all types of "addition", e.g. arithmetic, algebraic, voltage phasor, Poynting vector, scalar power, superposition, merging, mixing, ... Which type of "addition" is appropriate depends upon the nature of what is being added. Simply put, if A + B = C creates an irreversible result, then A has (obviously?) interacted with B. If the result is reversible, then A has not interacted with B. For the great majority of cases, superposition does not result in interaction. For the great majority of cases, interference does not result in interaction. For some (special?) cases, superposition (plus associated interference and wave cancellation) results in interaction and the result is irreversible. Non reflective glass is an example of wave interaction. The internal reflection cancels the external reflection and the energy in those two reflections changes directions. A Z0-match at an impedance discontinuity in an RF transmission line is another example. Again, if two waves are coherent, collimated, and traveling in the same direction, those two waves will interact, i.e. their superposition result is not reversible. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Jun 1, 11:23*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:52*am, lu6etj wrote: Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of A added to B? Of course, there are all types of "addition", e.g. arithmetic, algebraic, voltage phasor, Poynting vector, scalar power, superposition, merging, mixing, ... Which type of "addition" is appropriate depends upon the nature of what is being added. Simply put, if A + B = C creates an irreversible result, then A has (obviously?) interacted with B. If the result is reversible, then A has not interacted with B. For the great majority of cases, superposition does not result in interaction. For the great majority of cases, interference does not result in interaction. For some (special?) cases, superposition (plus associated interference and wave cancellation) results in interaction and the result is irreversible. Non reflective glass is an example of wave interaction. The internal reflection cancels the external reflection and the energy in those two reflections changes directions. A Z0-match at an impedance discontinuity in an RF transmission line is another example. Again, if two waves are coherent, collimated, and traveling in the same direction, those two waves will interact, i.e. their superposition result is not reversible. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com what exactly is the 'interaction' and why is it unique to that special coherent, collimated, etc, case? if two waves can 'interact' in that case there should be other evidence that they can interact in other situations. just because a+b=c doesn't mean that a and b have magically disappeared for some reason, in mathematics c=a+b is just as valid and implies that c is made up of a and b... or using your water analogy, adding one pint to another pint doesn't magically cause them to 'interact' in some way, the original water is still there, perhaps indistinguishable from each other, but still there. it may be convenient to represent the result of summing an infinite series of reflections as a single number, but it is not necessary. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Jun 1, 8:10*am, K1TTT wrote:
what exactly is the 'interaction' *and why is it unique to that special coherent, collimated, etc, case? Is it not obvious that when two reflected waves cancel in one direction, as at the surface of a 1/4WL thin-film coating on glass, and their combined EM energy is redistributed in the opposite direction, that those two waves have interacted, i.e. have suffered a permanent change and have lost their original identities? Is it not obvious that when two waves are traveling two different paths where the incident angle is, e.g. two degrees, that those two waves will superpose and interfere throughout a certain space after which they emerge intact, unaffected, and have obviously not interacted, i.e. they suffered no permanent change and have maintained their original identities? Did superposition occur in both cases? Yes. Did interference occur in both cases? Yes. Did wave cancellation occur in both cases? No, just in the non-reflective glass case. Consider a transmission line with an SWR of 5.83:1. The sourced power is 100 watts. The forward power is 200 watts. The reflected power is 100 watts. All of the reflected power is redistributed back toward the load at a Z0-match through reflection and wave cancellation. Zero reflected power is incident upon the source. Does the 100w source wave lose its identity when it merges with the 100w of redistributed reflected wave to become the 200w forward wave? Is the steady-state load energy coming from the source wave or the redistributed reflected wave or both? Seems to me, it is obvious that the two original component waves have interacted and lost their original identities for good if they are pure coherent sine waves traveling in the same direction confined to a coaxial transmission line. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Jun 1, 1:52*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 1, 8:10*am, K1TTT wrote: what exactly is the 'interaction' *and why is it unique to that special coherent, collimated, etc, case? Is it not obvious that when two reflected waves cancel in one direction, as at the surface of a 1/4WL thin-film coating on glass, and their combined EM energy is redistributed in the opposite direction, that those two waves have interacted, i.e. have suffered a permanent change and have lost their original identities? Is it not obvious that when two waves are traveling two different paths where the incident angle is, e.g. two degrees, that those two waves will superpose and interfere throughout a certain space after which they emerge intact, unaffected, and have obviously not interacted, i.e. they suffered no permanent change and have maintained their original identities? no, it is not obvious. where do you draw the line... 1 degree, .1 degree, .001 degree? at what point is the angle small enough to say that they have 'interacted' and the energy is redistributed? Did superposition occur in both cases? Yes. Did interference occur in both cases? Yes. Did wave cancellation occur in both cases? No, just in the non-reflective glass case. i propose that 'cancellation' is just a special case of interference where the waves are 'close enough' to collinear that you never see the interference pattern. this would of course always apply in a transmission line because they are confined. closely analyze the transient response of your non-reflective glass in the case where the wave is not incident perpendicular to the glass. do each reflection from each interface separately as the wave travels in the coating at an angle. then reduce the angle to very near perpendicular and you should see that there are indeed reflections that should very nearly 'cancel' each other out as the number of reflections gets bigger. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:52:35 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote: Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing to causal relations? Hi Miguel, Language would have us believe that causal relations "be" from "cause." Common language sometimes uses "because" as a bridge between phrases without necessarily implying causality - in other words, the word "because" is verbal noise when that happens. "Because" is often a one word reply to a child's question "Why?" I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena? Oh, I do that all the time. However, I do not mistake representations as being the real thing. In other contexts, they are more real than the real thing. So, if there is dislike, it comes from seeing inferior representation when better work requires so little more effort. Here we often use the word "methafor" now there's a curious and suggestive spelling in figured sense instead "analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real (my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a true methaphor or an analogy? Both. But context should resolve that, or it could still be both. That is why metaphor and analogy are so dangerous. That is also why it is so useful in fiction. We get enough fiction here. Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models, (mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's "analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world? These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic- realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston", slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :) Namaste. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Chapter 19A from "Reflections III" - Step 9 response | Antenna | |||
Chapter 19A from "Reflections III" - Step 8 response | Antenna | |||
Chapter 19A from "Reflections III" - Step 7 response | Antenna | |||
Chapter 19A from "Reflections III" - Step Reviews Overview | Antenna | |||
Use "Tape Out" Or "Ext Speaker" Output For PC's Line-In ? And, acars question | Scanner |