Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... Once again, SWR is defined in terms of SOURCE impedance and LOAD impedance. The normal LOAD for a transmitter is one end of a piece of coax with an antenna on the other end. The SWR at the near end of a piece of coax may or may not be the same as the SWR at the far end of the coax. -- Jim Pennino Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have never seen anything that mentions the Source impedance. Just the ratio of the voltage or current going forward and reflected. The SWR has to be the same at any point on the coax or transmission line minus the loss in the line. A simple swr meter may show some differance because of the way that kind of meter works. By changing the length of the line , the apparent SWR may be differant at that point. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message ... Once again, SWR is defined in terms of SOURCE impedance and LOAD impedance. The normal LOAD for a transmitter is one end of a piece of coax with an antenna on the other end. The SWR at the near end of a piece of coax may or may not be the same as the SWR at the far end of the coax. -- Jim Pennino Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php I have never seen anything that mentions the Source impedance. Just the ratio of the voltage or current going forward and reflected. It is generally not mentioned in Amateur publications. The SWR has to be the same at any point on the coax or transmission line minus the loss in the line. A simple swr meter may show some differance because of the way that kind of meter works. By changing the length of the line , the apparent SWR may be differant at that point. There is no such thing as apparent SWR. It is what it is in a given place. Transmission line transformers. http://highfrequencyelectronics.com/...TraskPart2.pdf Impedance matching. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_matching -- Jim Pennino |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message news ![]() Ralph Mowery wrote: Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message news ![]() Ralph Mowery wrote: Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. Notice it actually says "the impedance toward the source". From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: What the hell do you think the transmission line is in this case if not the source? "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." Perhaps you would like the second link better as it has pictures. Of maybe this one that explains it all starting with lumped equivelant circuits. http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/ap...dex.mvp/id/742 Notice that ALL the links talk about the source impedance. -- Jim Pennino |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/8/2015 6:43 PM, wrote:
Ralph Mowery wrote: wrote in message news ![]() Ralph Mowery wrote: Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. Notice it actually says "the impedance toward the source". From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: What the hell do you think the transmission line is in this case if not the source? "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." Perhaps you would like the second link better as it has pictures. Of maybe this one that explains it all starting with lumped equivelant circuits. http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/ap...dex.mvp/id/742 Notice that ALL the links talk about the source impedance. So, you are saying Zo is the source impedance while every one else thinks it is the characteristic impedance of the line. Go back to your books and look up the definition of Zo. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John S wrote:
On 7/8/2015 6:43 PM, wrote: Ralph Mowery wrote: wrote in message news ![]() Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. Notice it actually says "the impedance toward the source". From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: What the hell do you think the transmission line is in this case if not the source? "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." Perhaps you would like the second link better as it has pictures. Of maybe this one that explains it all starting with lumped equivelant circuits. http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/ap...dex.mvp/id/742 Notice that ALL the links talk about the source impedance. So, you are saying Zo is the source impedance while every one else thinks it is the characteristic impedance of the line. Go back to your books and look up the definition of Zo. When a transmission line is connected to a load, the source for the load IS the end of the transmission line. Where else would you think the source is? Instead of arguing about it, one can download QUCS for free which will simulate the whole thing and one can see what really happens. Download QUCS for your operating system: http://qucs.sourceforge.net/ Generate a model consisting of a voltage source with a series resistance of a few Ohms to simulate a solid state source or a much higher resistance to simulate a vacuum tube source. Chose a convienient frequency for the simulation. Go to: http://home.sandiego.edu/~ekim/e194r.../matcher2.html to calculate an impedance matching network to match the resistance you've chosen to 50 Ohms at the choosen frequency. Put the matching circuit in the model. Add a 50 Ohm transmission line to the model. Terminate the transmission line with a 50 Ohm resistor. Add a fixed frequency AC simulation at the choosen frequency. Change various parameters to your heart's content to see what happens. Change the matching network such that the output of your transmitter is no longer 50 Ohms and see what happens. When the QUCS output disagrees with your beliefs, you can argue with the program. -- Jim Pennino |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/8/2015 7:43 PM, wrote:
Ralph Mowery wrote: wrote in message news ![]() Ralph Mowery wrote: Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php You might check that again. I don't see Zo being defined as the complex source impedance, but rather as the transmission line characteristic impedance... not the same thing at all. YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. Notice it actually says "the impedance toward the source". From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: What the hell do you think the transmission line is in this case if not the source? "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." Perhaps you would like the second link better as it has pictures. Of maybe this one that explains it all starting with lumped equivelant circuits. http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/ap...dex.mvp/id/742 Notice that ALL the links talk about the source impedance. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...dance_matching I think this has some very interesting analysis, very specifically referring to "purely resistive load impedance". -- Rick |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote:
On 7/8/2015 7:43 PM, wrote: Ralph Mowery wrote: wrote in message news ![]() Can you show any place where the SWR definition mentions the Source impedance ? I have several times now, but once again: SWR = (1 + |r|)/(1 - |r|) Where r = reflection coefficient. r = (Zl - Zo)/(Zl + Zo) Where Zl = complex load impedance and Zo = complex source impedance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutori...nsmission3.php You might check that again. I don't see Zo being defined as the complex source impedance, but rather as the transmission line characteristic impedance... not the same thing at all. YOu have just proven my point. Read carefully from your refernce to Wikipedia : "The reflection coefficient of a load is determined by its impedance and the impedance toward the source." Notice it says TOWARD and not THE SOURCE. Notice it actually says "the impedance toward the source". From the second referaence notice that it says load impedance and impedance of the transmission line. Nothing mentions the source at all: What the hell do you think the transmission line is in this case if not the source? "The reflection coefficient is usually denoted by the symbol gamma. Note that the magnitude of the reflection coefficient does not depend on the length of the line, only the load impedance and the impedance of the transmission line. Also, note that if ZL=Z0, then the line is "matched". In this case, there is no mismatch loss and all power is transferred to the load." Perhaps you would like the second link better as it has pictures. Of maybe this one that explains it all starting with lumped equivelant circuits. http://www.maximintegrated.com/en/ap...dex.mvp/id/742 Notice that ALL the links talk about the source impedance. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standi...dance_matching I think this has some very interesting analysis, very specifically referring to "purely resistive load impedance". So what? A purely resistive anything is a special case of the general problem. -- Jim Pennino |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jeff" wrote in message ... The SWR has to be the same at any point on the coax or transmission line minus the loss in the line. A simple swr meter may show some differance because of the way that kind of meter works. By changing the length of the line , the apparent SWR may be differant at that point. There is no such thing as apparent SWR. It is what it is in a given place. By 'apparent SWR' he means as indicated SWR on the meter, and yes it can change at various point on the line due to inadequacies in the meter; the 'real' VSWR will of course remain the same at any point on a lossless line. Jeff That is what I mean Jeff. If there is any SWR, by changing the length of the line, the voltage/current changes in such a maner that at certain points you may get a 50 ohm match at that point. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Vertical Antenna Performance Question | Antenna | |||
Antenna Question: Vertical Whip Vs. Type X | Scanner | |||
Question about 20-meter monoband vertical (kinda long - antenna gurus welcome) | Antenna | |||
Technical Vertical Antenna Question | Shortwave | |||
Short STACKED Vertical {Tri-Band} BroomStick Antenna [Was: Wire ant question] | Shortwave |