"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Cecil wrote:
Uhhhh Dave, the original topic is the Subject: line. If anything,
what happens inside a transmitter is the irrelevant subject since
appreciable reflections hardly ever reach the typical ham transmitter.

here is the original:

Are you saying that the original subject was wrong?

no, only that you ignored the body of the message and answered what you
wanted to discuss instead of what was asked.


of course it is contrived. no one uses loads of those exact impedances,
or
lengths of coax like you do.

Dave, have you ever heard of an example? What I posted is one
easy-to-understand example of virtually an infinite number of
possible examples of a Z0-match. If you like, here is another
example of a Z0-match:

XMTR------tuner---unknown length of feedline---unknown load
100W--
--0W

There is a Z0-match at the input of the tuner. All the voltages
and all the currents are very close to in-phase or 180 degrees
out of phase at the input of the tuner. Do you have the balls to
assert that the above configuration is "contrived"?

nope, that is a real world situation, but not the one under discussion.


THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEMS ACHIEVE CLOSE
TO A Z0-MATCH!!! That means all the voltages and currents are close
to being in phase or 180 degrees out of phase. I'm sorry that technical
fact hairlips you. Since your hidden agenda is hidden, I can only
guess what it might be.

so which is it, in phase or 180 degrees out of phase???

Dave wrote:
no, only that you ignored the body of the message and answered what you
wanted to discuss instead of what was asked.

Yes, I did. I didn't know anything about the original question so
I kindly offered to discuss something I know something about. If that
is against netnews guidelines, could you show me where it says so?

nope, that is a real world situation, but not the one under discussion.

A 1/4WL matching section is not a "real world situation"? Since when?
Everything I post is a real-world situation except for the obvious,
e.g. one-second long lossless transmission lines.

so which is it, in phase or 180 degrees out of phase???

It depends upon which signal we are talking about and whether the
impedance discontinuity steps-up or steps-down. Assuming the generated
forward wave (a1) has the voltage and current in phase at zero degrees:

For a step-up impedance discontinuity, the s11(a1) reflection term
will have the voltage at zero degrees (and the current at 180 degrees).

For a Z0-match, b1 will be zero so s12(a2) must be equal magnitude
and opposite phase to s11(a1). That puts the reflection from the
load with voltage at 180 degrees (and current at zero degrees).
All interference at port1 is totally destructive for a Z0-match.

The s21(a1) term has voltage at zero degrees (and current at zero
degrees). All interference at port2 is constructive so s22(a2) also
has the voltage at zero degrees (and current at zero degrees).

For a step-down impedance discontinuity associated with a Z0-match,
the phases of the reflected voltages and currents are shifted by 180
degrees and b1 still equals zero.

The above is exactly what happens at the match point at the input
of a tuner. ***Therefore, the great majority of ham radio antenna
systems have the voltages and currents either in-phase or 180 degrees
out of phase at the tuner match point.*** In fact, all a tuner does is
shift the magnitude and phase of the reflected waves from a mismatched
antenna to be equal in magnitude and 180 degrees out of phase with the
reflections from the match point. Therefore, all reflections are canceled
at the match point but not between the match point and the antenna.

This was all explained 64 years ago (when I was two years old) by J. C.
Slater in _Microwave_Transmission_. Why do I have to explain it all over
again?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:49:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I didn't know anything about the original question
Stock answer.

This was all explained 64 years ago (when I was two years old) by J. C.
Slater in _Microwave_Transmission_. Why do I have to explain it all over
again?
Possibly because you so ill understood it then as now?

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
This was all explained 64 years ago (when I was two years old) by J. C.
Slater in _Microwave_Transmission_. Why do I have to explain it all over
again?

Possibly because you so ill understood it then as now?

Well Richard, here's your chance. Please enlighten us on J.C.
Slater's meaning of: "The method of eliminating reflections
is based on the interference between waves. ... The fundamental
principle behind the elimination of reflections is then to have
each reflected wave canceled by another wave of equal amplitude
and opposite phase."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 24 May 2004 13:19:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Well Richard, here's your chance. Please enlighten us on J.C.
What was the original question? [accredited stock response]

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Well Richard, here's your chance. Please enlighten us on J.C.

What was the original question? [accredited stock response]

When totally ignorant, divert the issue as long as possible.
Why am I not surprised?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:06:28 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
What was the original question? [accredited stock response]
When totally ignorant, divert the issue as long as possible.
Why am I not surprised?
Are you sure this is the original question? [accredited stock
response]

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 13:19:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Well Richard, here's your chance. Please enlighten us on J.C.
What was the original question? [accredited stock response]

It's clear that R.C. loves tweeking Cecil.
Steve

Steve Nosko wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote:

wrote:
Well Richard, here's your chance. Please enlighten us on J.C.
Slater's words in _Microwave_Transmission_.

What was the original question? [accredited stock response]

It's clear that R.C. loves tweeking Cecil.

Trouble is, I usually have no idea what his random ramblings
are all about.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
no, only that you ignored the body of the message and answered what you
wanted to discuss instead of what was asked.

Yes, I did. I didn't know anything about the original question so
I kindly offered to discuss something I know something about. If that
is against netnews guidelines, could you show me where it says so?

of course it is against guidelines. you were starting a new thread without
changing the subject. in effect hijacking the thread for your own
discussion.


nope, that is a real world situation, but not the one under discussion.

A 1/4WL matching section is not a "real world situation"? Since when?
Everything I post is a real-world situation except for the obvious,
e.g. one-second long lossless transmission lines.

i said it was real world, but it is not what the original thread was about.