On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end. The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches the
output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
(especially with a perfect impedance match).

But I don't see anyone taking wavelength vs. feed line length into
account. If the wavelength is long compared to the feed line I believe
a lot of the "bad" stuff goes away. But then I am used to the digital
transmission line where we aren't really concerned with delivering
power, rather keeping a clean waveform of our (relatively) square waves.
So I guess a short feed line doesn't solve the SWR problems... or does
it?

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end. The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

# Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches the
# output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
# the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
# well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
# (especially with a perfect impedance match).

Well, I put a few (unrealistic) qualifiers into my question: a transmitter
with a a 1063 ohm output (not 50), and a lossless RG-8.

Thus, the back and forth reflections would not have attenuation.
And the transmitter and load are conjugately matched for maximum power
transfer.

# But I don't see anyone taking wavelength vs. feed line length into
# account. If the wavelength is long compared to the feed line I believe
# a lot of the "bad" stuff goes away. But then I am used to the digital
# transmission line where we aren't really concerned with delivering
# power, rather keeping a clean waveform of our (relatively) square waves.
# So I guess a short feed line doesn't solve the SWR problems... or does
# it?

The attenuation at a given high SWR depends upon the the matched feedline
loss, as reflections encounter that loss with every forward or backward
trip.
Thus feedline length/attenuation should be considered.

As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna performance on
an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the transmitter was
close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been connected
to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at 120 MHz.

In message , Wayne
writes





As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna
performance on an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the
transmitter was close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been
connected to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at 120
MHz.

A length of coax, which has (say) at least 10dB loss at the frequency of
interest, can indeed make a superb SWR dummy load!
--
Ian

On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end.
The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

# Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches the
# output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
# the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
# well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
# (especially with a perfect impedance match).

Well, I put a few (unrealistic) qualifiers into my question: a
transmitter with a a 1063 ohm output (not 50), and a lossless RG-8.

Thus, the back and forth reflections would not have attenuation.
And the transmitter and load are conjugately matched for maximum power
transfer.

Your quoting style is very confusing. If you use with a space at the
front of lines you are quoting it will show up the same as everyone
else's quotes.

Why will the reflections not have losses? Every load that is not an
infinite impedance will absorb some of the signal that would be
reflected. That applies to the transmitter output as well as the
antenna, no?

A matched impedance does not mean no losses. It means the maximum
transfer of power. These are not at all the same thing.


# But I don't see anyone taking wavelength vs. feed line length into
# account. If the wavelength is long compared to the feed line I believe
# a lot of the "bad" stuff goes away. But then I am used to the digital
# transmission line where we aren't really concerned with delivering
# power, rather keeping a clean waveform of our (relatively) square waves.
# So I guess a short feed line doesn't solve the SWR problems... or does
# it?

The attenuation at a given high SWR depends upon the the matched
feedline loss, as reflections encounter that loss with every forward or
backward trip.
Thus feedline length/attenuation should be considered.

As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna performance
on an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the transmitter
was close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been
connected to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at 120 MHz.

So how was the SWR 1:1?

--

Rick

In message , rickman
writes
On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end.
The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

# Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches the
# output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
# the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
# well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
# (especially with a perfect impedance match).

Well, I put a few (unrealistic) qualifiers into my question: a
transmitter with a a 1063 ohm output (not 50), and a lossless RG-8.

Thus, the back and forth reflections would not have attenuation.
And the transmitter and load are conjugately matched for maximum power
transfer.

Your quoting style is very confusing. If you use with a space at the
front of lines you are quoting it will show up the same as everyone
else's quotes.

Why will the reflections not have losses? Every load that is not an
infinite impedance will absorb some of the signal that would be
reflected. That applies to the transmitter output as well as the
antenna, no?

A matched impedance does not mean no losses. It means the maximum
transfer of power. These are not at all the same thing.


# But I don't see anyone taking wavelength vs. feed line length into
# account. If the wavelength is long compared to the feed line I believe
# a lot of the "bad" stuff goes away. But then I am used to the digital
# transmission line where we aren't really concerned with delivering
# power, rather keeping a clean waveform of our (relatively) square waves.
# So I guess a short feed line doesn't solve the SWR problems... or does
# it?

The attenuation at a given high SWR depends upon the the matched
feedline loss, as reflections encounter that loss with every forward or
backward trip.
Thus feedline length/attenuation should be considered.

As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna performance
on an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the transmitter
was close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been
connected to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at 120 MHz.

So how was the SWR 1:1?

It's probably the go-and-return loss of (say) 20dB's worth of coax (at
120MHz), with the far end open (or short) circuit. That would give you
an RLR of 40dB (an SWR of 1.02), which probably far exceeds the
capability of an SWR meter to read.
http://bit.ly/1T8TwcF
http://cgi.www.telestrian.co.uk/cgi-bin/www.telestrian.co.uk/vswr.pl

--
Ian

On 7/2/2015 6:53 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , rickman writes
On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:

The attenuation at a given high SWR depends upon the the matched
feedline loss, as reflections encounter that loss with every forward or
backward trip.
Thus feedline length/attenuation should be considered.

As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna performance
on an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the transmitter
was close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been
connected to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at
120 MHz.

So how was the SWR 1:1?

It's probably the go-and-return loss of (say) 20dB's worth of coax (at
120MHz), with the far end open (or short) circuit. That would give you
an RLR of 40dB (an SWR of 1.02), which probably far exceeds the
capability of an SWR meter to read.
http://bit.ly/1T8TwcF
http://cgi.www.telestrian.co.uk/cgi-bin/www.telestrian.co.uk/vswr.pl

I like the comment that the antenna "didn't work well". Lol. I wonder
how much better it worked when connected. The feed line would still
have a lot of loss one way. I wonder why the power amp wasn't closer to
the antenna.

Reminds me of a time I was working a job installing TV antennas and one
was up the side of the ridge near here. In the "old days" we would
unplug the TV to prevent shocks from a "hot" chassis set. This
installation also had a wall jack for the antenna connection. The guy
on the roof told me to plug the TV in and check the signal while the
turned the antenna. The image was a little snowy, but not bad. No
matter how they turned the antenna the image didn't get much better. I
looked behind the set and saw the three foot twin lead from the set
laying on the floor. I plugged it in and the picture was *perfect*! I
was amazed a short piece of lead in could receive as good a signal.

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end.
The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

# Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches the
# output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
# the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
# well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
# (especially with a perfect impedance match).

Well, I put a few (unrealistic) qualifiers into my question: a
transmitter with a a 1063 ohm output (not 50), and a lossless RG-8.

Thus, the back and forth reflections would not have attenuation.
And the transmitter and load are conjugately matched for maximum power
transfer.

# Your quoting style is very confusing. If you use with a space at the
# front of lines you are quoting it will show up the same as everyone
# else's quotes.

It's a problem with my newsreader not doing the proper job.



#Why will the reflections not have losses?

Because the assumption I posed was for a lossless line. In that case, with
a conjugate match on both ends, wouldn't there be maximum power transmission
regardless of the SWR?

......just a question I'm posing to the group.

With no line losses, and a conjugate match, is the SWR of any consequence?






A matched impedance does not mean no losses. It means the maximum
transfer of power. These are not at all the same thing.


# But I don't see anyone taking wavelength vs. feed line length into
# account. If the wavelength is long compared to the feed line I believe
# a lot of the "bad" stuff goes away. But then I am used to the digital
# transmission line where we aren't really concerned with delivering
# power, rather keeping a clean waveform of our (relatively) square waves.
# So I guess a short feed line doesn't solve the SWR problems... or does
# it?

The attenuation at a given high SWR depends upon the the matched
feedline loss, as reflections encounter that loss with every forward or
backward trip.
Thus feedline length/attenuation should be considered.

As a young man I was given a problem of solving poor antenna performance
on an aircraft band fixed station antenna. The SWR at the transmitter
was close to 1:1, but the antenna didn't work well.
I climbed up on the tower and found that the coax had never been
connected to the antenna. That was with about 400 feet of coax at 120
MHz.



# So how was the SWR 1:1?

It was a long run of coax at 120 MHz. The reflected wave was was attenuated
considerably by the time it returned to the source.

On 7/2/2015 8:53 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 12:18 PM, Wayne wrote:


"John S" wrote in message ...

On 7/1/2015 10:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John S
writes
On 6/29/2015 3:47 PM, Wayne wrote:

snipped to shorten

Ok. Well, 43ft is a half wavelength at about 12MHz. The vertical will
be very high impedance at that frequency and a 1:4 unun will
theoretically bring that impedance down closer to the feed line
impedance.

Does this help?

It was been pointed out to me that the figures for feeder loss with an
imperfect SWR are only correct when the length is fairly long (at least
an electrical wavelength?). How much loss does 25' of RG-8 really have
at 12MHz, when there's a halfwave hanging on the far end?

# A *resonant* half wave at 12MHz is about 36.7 feet long and it
presents
# an impedance of about 1063 + j0 ohms to the RG-8 at the antenna end.
The
# current at the antenna end is 0.0245A while one watt is applied at the
# source end. This means that the power applied to the antenna is about
# 0.687W. So, about 68% of the applied power reaches the antenna.

# So, about 32% of the power is lost in the RG-8 for this example.

I'm just trying to understand this, so let me ask a question about your
example.

Isn't the 32% lost a function of not having a conjugate match maximum
power transfer?
If the transmitter had a Z of 1063 -j0, and a lossless RG8 feedline,
wouldn't maximum power be transferred?
(Even with a SWR of about 21:1)

# Transferred where? The match at the transmitter output only matches
the
# output to the line. There are still reflections from the mismatch at
# the antenna. These reflections result in extra losses in the line as
# well as power delivered back into the transmitter output stage
# (especially with a perfect impedance match).

Well, I put a few (unrealistic) qualifiers into my question: a
transmitter with a a 1063 ohm output (not 50), and a lossless RG-8.

Thus, the back and forth reflections would not have attenuation.
And the transmitter and load are conjugately matched for maximum power
transfer.

# Your quoting style is very confusing. If you use with a space at the
# front of lines you are quoting it will show up the same as everyone
# else's quotes.

It's a problem with my newsreader not doing the proper job.


#Why will the reflections not have losses?

Because the assumption I posed was for a lossless line. In that case,
with a conjugate match on both ends, wouldn't there be maximum power
transmission regardless of the SWR?

You aren't grasping the issue. Losses are *not* only in the
transmission line. When a reflected wave returns to the transmitter
output, it is not reflected 100%. If the output and transmission line
are matched exactly, 50% of the reflected wave reaching the output will
be reflected and 50% will be dissipated in the output stage.

Are you suggesting that the conjugate match will reflect back to the
antenna 100% of the original reflected wave from the antenna?

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 8:53 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:

Why will the reflections not have losses?

Because the assumption I posed was for a lossless line. In that case,
with a conjugate match on both ends, wouldn't there be maximum power
transmission regardless of the SWR?

You aren't grasping the issue. Losses are *not* only in the transmission
line. When a reflected wave returns to the transmitter output, it is not
reflected 100%. If the output and transmission line are matched exactly,
50% of the reflected wave reaching the output will be reflected and 50%
will be dissipated in the output stage.

I don't think I've ever heard that anywhere before. Could you elaborate?


Are you suggesting that the conjugate match will reflect back to the
antenna 100% of the original reflected wave from the antenna?

Well, yes. Minus losses in matching networks and transmission lines.

In examples with lossless lines and lossless matching networks, wouldn't it
be 100%.

On 7/3/2015 3:27 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 8:53 PM, Wayne wrote:


"rickman" wrote in message ...

On 7/2/2015 3:52 PM, Wayne wrote:

Why will the reflections not have losses?

Because the assumption I posed was for a lossless line. In that case,
with a conjugate match on both ends, wouldn't there be maximum power
transmission regardless of the SWR?

You aren't grasping the issue. Losses are *not* only in the
transmission line. When a reflected wave returns to the transmitter
output, it is not reflected 100%. If the output and transmission line
are matched exactly, 50% of the reflected wave reaching the output
will be reflected and 50% will be dissipated in the output stage.

I don't think I've ever heard that anywhere before. Could you elaborate?

I'm not so sure now. I think I mentioned before that I learned about
transmission lines in the digital context where source and loads are
largely resistive. Resistance dissipates power. So when matched the
source dissipates as much power as delivered to the load (or
transmission line). Likewise, matched impedance will not reflect power,
but rather it is all absorbed. That is what happens at the antenna for
sure. But I'm not clear about what this conjugate network is really.
If it is purely reactive, then it will not have losses other than the
parasitics.

I have to admit I am not fluent in the complex math of networks. So off
hand an impedance of 1063 -j0 says to me resistive. The imaginary part
implies phase shifting, no? With that term being 0 doesn't that say the
capacitive and inductive parts cancel out leaving only resistance? If
you can, please explain how I am wrong.


Are you suggesting that the conjugate match will reflect back to the
antenna 100% of the original reflected wave from the antenna?

Well, yes. Minus losses in matching networks and transmission lines.

In examples with lossless lines and lossless matching networks, wouldn't
it be 100%.

I don't get how the matching network will reflect the wave from the
antenna 100%. Is that something you can explain?

--

Rick