This place is where one can just about learn anything or nothing or learn
incorreclty. AKA the politics of reflections.

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:32:14 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:
What if the source doesn't or can't dissipate?

Hi Hank,

Simple enough to find out. Disconnect the output of your transmitter.
Set the drive level of your transmitter for full power. Defeat the
ALC. Key down. By the clock or watch, take notes at 1 minute
intervals for, say, 10 minutes. Prepare notes into report. Submit
report here. Total time to perform: 30 seconds - 30 minutes depending
mostly on access to the ALC defeat.

This answers all equivocations about does/doesn't; will/won't;
might/mightn't; could/couldn't; or can/can't. Think about it, you
have probably spent more time than that writing to and reading from
this thread to no certain conclusion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Is there any objective reality when it comes to reflections? How do we
really know?

Henry Kolesnik wrote:

This place is where one can just about learn anything or nothing or learn
incorreclty. AKA the politics of reflections.

Well perhaps I should reword my comment. It seems like many responders are
getting into the politics of reflections, some into the theory but I believe
it's a science and should be explainable. Theories are used to explain what
goes on inside a black box that we can't open, just an input and output.
But a shorted 1/4 wave stub is about as far as you can get from a black
box.. I'm curious!
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking and that's me.

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Dave Shrader" wrote in message
news:Mp1zc.42427$HG.38082@attbi_s53...
Is there any objective reality when it comes to reflections? How do we
really know?

Henry Kolesnik wrote:

This place is where one can just about learn anything or nothing or
learn
incorreclty. AKA the politics of reflections.

Originally you asked:
so how does a stub work?

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:21:19 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:

Well perhaps I should reword my comment.
snip complaint of politics
But a shorted 1/4 wave stub is about as far as you can get from a black
box.. I'm curious!

Hi Hank,

Seems like several many have offered the simple mechanics to satisfy
the question.

Would you like to comment why they did not? If you find the
reflection based argument tedious (and it can be that in spades); then
perhaps you should offer an outline of the terms to be employed or the
constraints of the stub's application to reduce shot-gun answers that
bloat the thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Henry Kolesnik wrote:

Well perhaps I should reword my comment. It seems like many responders are
getting into the politics of reflections, some into the theory but I believe
it's a science and should be explainable. Theories are used to explain what
goes on inside a black box that we can't open, just an input and output.
But a shorted 1/4 wave stub is about as far as you can get from a black
box.. I'm curious!
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking and that's me.

The solid-state political creed seeks to discredit reflections by using
only the solid-state shortcut physics. These shortcuts certainly work,
but they do not dictate reality. Man, not Mother Nature, takes those
shortcuts. Witness the inability of anyone to present an example of
the existence of standing-waves in a single source, single feedline,
single mismatched load system, without the existence of a forward-
traveling wave and a rearward-traveling (reflected) wave.

The same solid-state political creed dictates the definition of source
power. It says that if reflected power is taken in the source, then
it was never generated in the first place. Never mind that energy can
be proven to have made a round-trip to the load and back to the source.
--
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 Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:54:36 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:
Is there any objective reality when it comes to reflections? How do we
really know?

Hi Dave,

I offered a very simple test. There is the path of an objective
result, or the path of a subjective and ponderous appeal.

You do have a rig, do you not? You could perform the several steps to
come to a conclusion I presume - otherwise disabuse me of this talent
I inferred in your behalf and state which political party you are
affiliated with.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Dave Shrader wrote:
Is there any objective reality when it comes to reflections? How do we
really know?

I offered a very simple test.

First, you must prove that you are a member of objective reality.
That's a very difficult assignment, given most of your postings. :-)
--
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 Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:57:11 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I offered a very simple test.
First, you must prove that you are a member of objective reality.
too simple to perform, hmm?

In the absence of an observer there is no objective reality.

In the absence of an observer any reality, if it exists, is unknowable.

I observe, therefore ...

+ + +

Cecil Moore wrote:


First, you must prove that you are a member of objective reality.
That's a very difficult assignment, given most of your postings. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Hi Dave,

I offered a very simple test. There is the path of an objective
result, or the path of a subjective and ponderous appeal.

You do have a rig, do you not? You could perform the several steps to
come to a conclusion I presume - otherwise disabuse me of this talent
I inferred in your behalf and state which political party you are
affiliated with.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm a retired EE and have used stubs extensively in USAF
Missile systems C-band and S-band design. They work, they get warm, they
increase the insertion loss in the transmission line system, they work,
they work, ...

We use the word 'THEORY' too loosely in ham discussions. Theory is the
state of experimental verification between Hypothesis and Law. Many
times we use the word 'Theory' when we should say that
Physics/Mathematics explain the observation as follows: etc.

In a shorted 1/4 wavelength transmission line 'stub' we have a current
maximum at the physical short circuit. We have a high impedance 1/4
wavelength from the physical short circuit. The voltage and current have
a sinusoidal relationship along the length of the 'stub'. There is a
forward and reflected wave within the 'stub'.

There are several loss components within the 'stub' including I^2*R and
V^2/Rl [Capacitive dielectric losses] and 1/2L*I^2 [Leakage Inductance
losses]. Therefore the presence of a stub increase the insertion loss in
the transmission line sub-system; conversely, the removal of the stub
reduces the insertion loss in the transmission line sub-system.

In EM Physics, circa 1958-59, the equations of state for the stub
included both a transient response and a steady state response. I have
not solved these equations in more than 20 years [I probably forgot how
to solve them in any event! ]

With all this said and done I find it interesting to follow the
discussions and learn many things, some of which are correct grin.