Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 10:36*am, K1TTT wrote:
i wouldn't call it a 'virtual' impedance, it is a very real impedance. Yes, it meets the (B) non-dissipative definition of impedance from "The IEEE Dictionary". It doesn't meet the (A) dissipative definition and it is not an impedor as it only exists as a V/I ratio. That's why I call it a virtual impedance. There is no resistor, there is no inductor, and there is no capacitor. There is only a V/I ratio caused by something else. it is the steady state impedance seen by the transmitter at its output terminals. * And it is a V/I ratio caused by the superposition of the forward wave and reflected wave, i.e. it would NOT be the same impedance without the reflected wave. That fact of physics is undeniable. When we have an actual impedor, i.e. a resistor plus an inductor or a capacitor, the voltage/current ratio is caused by the impedor. When we have a virtual impedance, the cause/effect procedure is reversed and the impedance is caused by the voltage/current ratio which may (or may not) contain both forward and reflected values. For the two definitions of impedance, (A) and (B), given in "The IEEE Dictionary", cause and effect are reversed. Let's take an example. Assume a 50 ohm load resistor fed with 1/2WL of 300 ohm lossless line. If we assume a 100 watt (50 ohm) source, the forward power will be 204 watts and the reflected power will be 104 watts. 100w Source----1/2WL 300 ohm feedline----50 ohm load In the feedline, a forward power of 204 watts is a forward voltage of 247.3 volts and a forward current of 0.825 amps. In the feedline, a reflected power of 104 watts is a reflected voltage of 176.6 volts and a reflected current of 0.589 amps. The reflected voltage is 180 degrees out of phase with the forward voltage at the transmitter, so the superposed voltage at the transmitter is 70.7 volts. The reflected current is in phase with the forward current at the transmitter so the superposed current is 1.414 amps. Since everything is either in phase or 180 degrees out of phase, phasor addition is not needed. So I repeat, the impedance seen by the transmitter is: Z = (Vfor - Vref)/(Ifor + Iref) Z = (247.3 - 176.6)/(0.825 + 0.589) Z = 70.7/1.414 = 50 ohms, NON-DISSIPATIVE! It is clear that the superposition of the forward wave with the reflected wave is the CAUSE of the 50 ohm impedance. That particular impedance cannot exist without the effects of the reflected wave. Using a math model for answers to problems for so long that one comes to believe that the model dictates reality is a major contributor to the myths and old wives' tales that exist in amateur radio today. It's time to get back to the basics even if it causes a few old rusty brains to be put in gear for the first time in decades. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 4:18*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:36*am, K1TTT wrote: i wouldn't call it a 'virtual' impedance, it is a very real impedance. Yes, it meets the (B) non-dissipative definition of impedance from "The IEEE Dictionary". It doesn't meet the (A) dissipative definition and it is not an impedor as it only exists as a V/I ratio. That's why I call it a virtual impedance. There is no resistor, there is no and that is part of the problem in here... 'you call it'. what is the definition of 'virtual impedance' in the ieee dictionary? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 12:28*pm, K1TTT wrote:
and that is part of the problem in here... 'you call it'. *what is the definition of 'virtual impedance' in the ieee dictionary? "The IEEE Dictionary" has no such definition. Those are my words adopted from "Reflections", by Walter Maxwell, and designed to differentiate between the (A) and (B) definitions of "impedance" in "The IEEE Dictionary". Calling the V/I (B) definition of impedance, "virtual", is much more descriptive than calling it "the (B) definition". Walt is arguing that the impedance of an RF source is "non- dissipative". Ratios of V/I are non-dissipative if they exist devoid of an impedor. Walt adopted the word "virtual" from the optics "virtual image". It is an image that is not really there in reality. A virtual impedance would therefore be the image of an impedor that is not really there. I'm not hung up on the word "virtual". What adjective would you use to differentiate between a dissipative impedor and a V/I non-dissipative impedance? I am not trying to be difficult - just trying to communicate. I'm willing to adopt any convention that you suggest for the duration of this discussion. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 7:19*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:28*pm, K1TTT wrote: and that is part of the problem in here... 'you call it'. *what is the definition of 'virtual impedance' in the ieee dictionary? "The IEEE Dictionary" has no such definition. Those are my words adopted from "Reflections", by Walter Maxwell, and designed to differentiate between the (A) and (B) definitions of "impedance" in "The IEEE Dictionary". Calling the V/I (B) definition of impedance, "virtual", is much more descriptive than calling it "the (B) definition". Walt is arguing that the impedance of an RF source is "non- dissipative". Ratios of V/I are non-dissipative if they exist devoid of an impedor. Walt adopted the word "virtual" from the optics "virtual image". It is an image that is not really there in reality. A virtual impedance would therefore be the image of an impedor that is not really there. what is an 'impedor' in this context? that is a relatively rarely used term in circuit and wave analysis, but is generically defined as anything that has an impedance. that doesn't seem to fit your definition though if you can qualify an impedance as non-dissipative if they don't have one. I'm not hung up on the word "virtual". What adjective would you use to differentiate between a dissipative impedor and a V/I non-dissipative impedance? I am not trying to be difficult - just trying to communicate. I'm willing to adopt any convention that you suggest for the duration of this discussion. the ieee dictionary qualifiers of dissipative and non-dissipative seem adequate to me. no need to make up any other terms or qualifiers. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:
what is an 'impedor' in this context? Hopefully, the same IEEE Dictionary definition as any other context: "impedor - a device, the purpose of which is to introduce impedance into an electric circuit." Note that it has a material existence. the ieee dictionary qualifiers of dissipative and non-dissipative seem adequate to me. *no need to make up any other terms or qualifiers. OK, I will change "virtual impedance" to "non-dissipative impedance" although if the resistance is zero, that still doesn't solve the semantic problem. The word "virtual" as used by Walter Maxwell over the past half-century conveys the meaning as well as any other words, IMO. The fact remains that a dissipative impedor is something that exists in the material world and can cause an outcome. A non-dissipative impedance is a *result* of a superposed V/I ratio, not a cause of anything. Roy once challenged me to detect the difference between a 50 ohm antenna and a 50 ohm dummy load. I said, "Simple, use a field strength meter." -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT
wrote: you can qualify an impedance as non-dissipative It's called reactance. There are certainly some contortions that have evolved from an argument that the source lacks the ability to dissipate. Impedance = (R ± jX) Ohm This is well known by all and yet it seems unsatisfactory and impossible to measure in a Tube even when R is exhibited both by measurement and by heat - something that by all normal accounts is evidence of dissipation. That same heat seems to be unaccountable because it's non-linear? If you use this heat on an ice cube, do you get harmonics? Even or odd? If it doesn't dissipate it must be because it has NOhms. If we embark further on this mysterious Load Conjugation with a loss-less resistor, what would we see for the Load Objurgation formula? rraaZ = (Rr ± iR ± jX) NOhm We must now have a Nimpedance measured along a second (hither too unreported) imaginary axis. I can imagine the dawn of the new Photon Ninterferences that will emerge from this. KEWEL ! 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Jun 11, 11:27*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT wrote: you can qualify an impedance as non-dissipative It's called reactance. not always. there is a non-dissipative resistance. a lossless transmission line has a pure real impedance, but no dissipation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Where does it go? (mismatched power)
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:35:34 -0700 (PDT), K1TTT
wrote: you can qualify an impedance as non-dissipative It's called reactance. not always. there is a non-dissipative resistance. a lossless transmission line has a pure real impedance, but no dissipation. Hi David, Ah! The appeal of the infinite, lossless transmission line. You forgot radiation. I think we can both agree that it can be measured, even by the inference of a chain of measurements and those measurements would consistently show the absence of heat. I think you would enjoy the absurdity of its appeal to being the plate "resistance" when the 1400 Ohms there would be embodied in 28 infinitely long lossless cables being tucked inside the tube. For others, If it were so (where those 28 infinitely long lines are tucked into another convenient dimension that sprang into being to satisfy argument), then what is the source of the heat of the plate that is in excess of that of the DC operating point? If some feel compelled to jump on the losslessness of radiation loss (now, if that isn't a paradox) - all fine and well for Art's short wound self-resonant radiators that would eventually devolve in size to the plate tank. If plate resistance was due to radiation, what need for antennas? Of course, we could add another rhetorical dimension that absorbs radiation.... 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mismatched Zo Connectors | Antenna | |||
Calculating loss on a mismatched line | Antenna | |||
Collins R390 power cord and power line filter | Boatanchors | |||
Collins R390 power cord and power line filter | Boatanchors | |||
Astron RS-20A Power Supply Great Condition - used to power a VHF radio | Swap |