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:

Absorb 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

Hello folks. (I am learnig new greetings...)

Hi Cecil:
Yesterday I was making some calculations based in your article "An
energy Analysis of a Simple Ideal Source, Part:1 Zero Average
Interference"
I have checked your and Roy results using three methods: Mathematical
solution using the TL Zin obtained from clássical formulas.
Spice simulation with equivalent lumping element resulting of the
above cited formulas, and Spice simulation with a RG8U TL loaded with
RL's of your and Roy examples..
In all cases results agree between different methods and with your
examples (I do.not want to seem pedantic with this last comment ;) )

For this discussion would be relevant the results corresponding to
sixth column of your article using a quarter wave line.
They a 0 - 8 - 22 - 50 - 88.9 - 128 and 200 W (190 W the last one
with Spice TL simulation).

Since the refflection coefficient has not changed, if I do not
misunderstood the premises, quarter wave line PRs do not seems agree
with the hipothesis of Pref adding in Rs with Pfor. I think that is
what Ro. Lewallen denote in his "Food for thought: Forward and reverse
power" example.
Frankly, I think there are somthing wrong in my interpretation because
you (all) should have already performed these checks. I remember you
have said something about that your work (article) was not finished
yet. I confess actually I have not yet entirely clear your differences
but I hope to capture it more accurately.

73 - Miguel LU6ETJ

PS: Hey Richard, I'm glad you liked our city, girls and steaks :)
well you like Gardel (me too) and I like so much your old and classic
jazz music. Billie Holiday... she is one of my favorites.
A friend of me living in Caracas now tell me the gift of fifteen for
girls consists of the operation to put silicones. must be very
dangerous for heart patients, a lot more dangerous than Buenos Aires
street traffic ;)
(SRI, I can not translate = "waiting for the Liberty launch back to
my ship", give me a hand PSE)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

(SRI, I can not translate = "waiting for the Liberty launch back to
my ship", give me a hand PSE)

Hi Miguel,

I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1975. Our president Richard Nixon
resigned from the presidency in 1974. My ship was in transit between
Charleston, South Carolina to go to the naval ship yard for overhaul
in Bremerton, Washington (state), near Seattle (where I live).

On the way, we spent 5 days in the harbor of Acapulco. We were
"anchored out," which means resting at anchor in the bay instead of
tied up at a pier.

The only way to get back and forth was by a smaller boat (carries
about 75 people). That boat is called a launch. That name is
qualified with Liberty because those who used it were going on
Liberty. In the Navy, Liberty means "time off" or "free time," which
means we can leave work and do what we want to until 0800 the next
day. If we have to be back by midnight, it is called "Cinderella
Liberty."

I was one of the senior Metrologists in the Fleet Electronics
Calibration Laboratory aboard the USS Holland, AS-32 (now tied up in
retirement in Bremerton). I did precision measurement and calibration
of RF standards and maintained a Cesium Beam Standard (atomic clock)
that set the time for the "Boomers" (nuclear submarines). Later,
after the Navy, I added physical standards (length, pressure, tension,
temperature, torque, smoothness, incline...) to my resumé.

I try to catch as many movies from Argentina as possible (I like
Ricardo Darín as an actor, and love "Nueve Reinas"). One of my
degrees is Cinema (the other is English). Another title I like (since
it is about an out-of-work programmer) is "Una Sombra ya Pronto
Serás." Sometimes that title works here too. Héctor Olivera, the
director, has done some interesting things.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 10, 10:04*pm, lu6etj wrote:
For this discussion would be relevant the results corresponding to
sixth column of your article using a quarter wave line.
They a 0 - 8 - 22 - 50 - 88.9 - 128 and 200 W (190 W the last one
with Spice TL simulation).

I'm sorry, Miguel, using a "quarter wave line" is a mistake. You
should be using a lossless 1/8WL line. The results in my article are
based on a 1/8WL (45 deg) lossless line, NOT on a 1/4WL (90 deg) line.
*Please re-run your Spice simulation using a 1/8WL line* and report
back to us. When the line is 1/8WL long, the reflected wave arrives
back at Rs 90 degrees out of phase with the forward wave and cos(90) =
0, so the interference term is zero and all the reflected power is
dissipated in the source resistor. For the special case where
cos(A)=0, i.e. the interference term is zero, the power density
equation reduces to: Prs = Pfor + Pref + 0

Nowhere in my article did I use a 1/4WL line so please don't say that
your Spice results disagree with my chart. It is perfectly
understandable that your 1/4WL results do not agree with my 1/8WL
results.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 11 jun, 11:06, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:04*pm, lu6etj wrote:

For this discussion would be relevant the results corresponding to
sixth column of your article using a quarter wave line.
They a 0 - 8 - 22 - 50 - 88.9 - 128 and 200 W (190 W the last one
with Spice TL simulation).

I'm sorry, Miguel, using a "quarter wave line" is a mistake. You
should be using a *lossless 1/8WL line. The results in my article are
based on a 1/8WL (45 deg) lossless line, NOT on a 1/4WL (90 deg) line.
*Please re-run your Spice simulation using a 1/8WL line* and report
back to us. When the line is 1/8WL long, the reflected wave arrives
back at Rs 90 degrees out of phase with the forward wave and cos(90) =
0, so the interference term is zero and all the reflected power is
dissipated in the source resistor. For the special case where
cos(A)=0, i.e. the interference term is zero, the power density
equation reduces to: Prs = Pfor + Pref + 0

Nowhere in my article did I use a 1/4WL line so please don't say that
your Spice results disagree with my chart. It is perfectly
understandable that your 1/4WL results do not agree with my 1/8WL
results.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Yes it is OK I am not saying your article use 1/4, In a previous post
I said with 1/8 lambda TL, results support your idea of Pref
dissipating on Rs (is correct my interpretation of your idea?).
Yesterdey I posted results calculated for a 1/4 lambda TL to comparing
both ponting to 1/4 lambda results did not agree with a Pref
dissipating on RS.
Then, I thought you are not intending generalize the very common
notion of.Pref returnig to generator but seem to me you are
hypothesizing there are different mechanisms dealing with Pref
depending of the line length. Is It OK?

(Meanwhile I will take a look at the new thread to look if I can find
exactly what is the heart of this question ;) )

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

PS: Thanks Richard, I would not have guessed it without your help.
Really a very interesting electronics job! I'm glad you're interested
in our films.. Of course here I grew up with the ubiquitous Hollywood
movies and I am very familiar with it and his old and popular TV
series. Before I go to bed this early morning I visited your QTH vía
Google streets panoramic photographies. Also I saw David -K1TTT-
watching his computer screen via his robotic webcam. I shake hands in
front of my PC monitor to greet him but did not see me :D

On Jun 11, 4:11*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Then, I thought you are not intending generalize the very common
notion of.Pref returnig to generator but seem to me you are
hypothesizing there are different mechanisms dealing with Pref
depending of the line length. Is It OK?

Yes, a 1/8WL line is a *SPECIAL CASE* where zero interference exists.
In the power density equation:

Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)*cos(A)

if A = 90, then cos(A) = 0 and there is no interference term and no
interference. When you go to a 1/4WL line, it is no longer a special
case where cos(A)=0 and I have not published anything on my web page
about that condition.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com