"Ian White, G3SEK wrote
The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.
_____________

Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the above
statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z of the tx PA
does not match its load Z (which is typical), power reflected from the load
mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected from the PA -- which then
contributes to the power sensed by a "wattmeter" in the output path.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:
"Ian White, G3SEK wrote
The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.
_____________

Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the above
statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z of the tx PA
does not match its load Z (which is typical), power reflected from the load
mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected from the PA -- which then
contributes to the power sensed by a "wattmeter" in the output path.

Sorry, that statement cannot be correct. It would mean that the
impedance you measure at the near end of a transmission line (terminated
by some arbitrary load at the far end) would depend on the internal
impedance of the device that's doing the measuring - and that is not
true, either in transmission-line theory or in the real world. It is a
function only of the line and the load.

Others can probably explain why the statement is also incorrect
according to the concept of "forward and reflected power waves". Myself,
I prefer avoid that concept completely, because it so easily leads into
this kind of mess.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

"Ian White, G3SEK"wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
"Ian White, G3SEK wrote
The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.

Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the
above
statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z of the tx
PA
does not match its load Z (which is typical), power reflected from the
load
mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected from the PA -- which then
contributes to the power sensed by a "wattmeter" in the output path.

Sorry, that statement cannot be correct. It would mean that the
impedance you measure at the near end of a transmission line (terminated
by some arbitrary load at the far end) would depend on the internal
impedance of the device that's doing the measuring - and that is not
true, either in transmission-line theory or in the real world. It is a
function only of the line and the load. etc
____________

How, then, do you explain the "ghost image" that can occur* in analog(ue) TV
transmission systems arising from reflections at/near the antenna end of the
station's transmission line?

*with sufficient round-trip propagation time in the transmission line

RF

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Richard Fry"
How....do you explain the "ghost image" .... TV

Sigh - moth + lamp (not you RF specifically, the newsgroup...).

LOOK - Discuss a simple step function (rising edge) - not RF. All of your
disagreements about SWR and reflections will be revealed as silly semantics
and the mixing up of the transient versus the steady state. A step function
makes it so simple that there is no room for arguments.

There is NOTHING in the endless (and now repeating) discussion other than
semantics and the above mention lack of discernment (initial transient
versus steady state).



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Richard Fry wrote:
"Ian White, G3SEK"wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
"Ian White, G3SEK wrote
The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.

Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the
above
statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z of the tx
PA
does not match its load Z (which is typical), power reflected from the
load
mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected from the PA -- which then
contributes to the power sensed by a "wattmeter" in the output path.

Sorry, that statement cannot be correct. It would mean that the
impedance you measure at the near end of a transmission line (terminated
by some arbitrary load at the far end) would depend on the internal
impedance of the device that's doing the measuring - and that is not
true, either in transmission-line theory or in the real world. It is a
function only of the line and the load. etc
____________

How, then, do you explain the "ghost image" that can occur* in analog(ue) TV
transmission systems arising from reflections at/near the antenna end of the
station's transmission line?

*with sufficient round-trip propagation time in the transmission line

Yes, that is a true observation, just as true as the one I made... so
now you have *two* different things to explain!

The so-called SWR meter is a steady-state instrument, so it always makes
sense to use that quicker, easier way of thinking. Since you're the one
who chooses to think of this particular situation in terms of multiple
reflections, any difficulties you encounter are entirely yours.

If you ever see a conflict between two different theories that explain
the same observed facts, then there's an error somewhere. If the
multiple-reflection theory is extrapolated to infinite time, so that it
calculates results for the steady state, it *must* give identical
results to the steady-state theory. But whenever the steady-state theory
can be used, it will always get you there much more quickly.

However, when you have finally done it your way, and accounted correctly
for all the reflections and re-reflections, we can predict the outcome
with complete confidence:

1. If you sum the successive reflections correctly to infinity, and
calculate the V/I ratio and phase at the station end of the line, then
the final result will be identical to the impedance given by the
steady-state transmission-line theory. It has to be, because that single
value is the reality.

2. Somewhere in your calculations, any value that you assume for the RF
source impedance is going to cancel right out of your calculations. The
correct mathematical result *must* be independent of that value -
because, again, that's the reality.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:



Yes, that is a true observation, just as true as the one I made... so
now you have *two* different things to explain!

The so-called SWR meter is a steady-state instrument, so it always makes
sense to use that quicker, easier way of thinking. Since you're the one
who chooses to think of this particular situation in terms of multiple
reflections, any difficulties you encounter are entirely yours.

If you ever see a conflict between two different theories that explain
the same observed facts, then there's an error somewhere. If the
multiple-reflection theory is extrapolated to infinite time, so that it
calculates results for the steady state, it *must* give identical
results to the steady-state theory. But whenever the steady-state theory
can be used, it will always get you there much more quickly.

However, when you have finally done it your way, and accounted correctly
for all the reflections and re-reflections, we can predict the outcome
with complete confidence:

1. If you sum the successive reflections correctly to infinity, and
calculate the V/I ratio and phase at the station end of the line, then
the final result will be identical to the impedance given by the
steady-state transmission-line theory. It has to be, because that single
value is the reality.

2. Somewhere in your calculations, any value that you assume for the RF
source impedance is going to cancel right out of your calculations. The
correct mathematical result *must* be independent of that value -
because, again, that's the reality.



This is correct. If you divide the formula for voltage, at any point on
a transmission line, by the formula for current, the generator impedance
cancels.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Pardon the extensive pasting, but it will allow a clearer post, and save a
lot of click time. / RF

"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote :
The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.

Richard Fry wrote:
Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the
above statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z
of the tx PA does not match its load Z (which is typical), power
reflected from the load mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected
from the PA -- which then contributes to the power sensed by a
"wattmeter" in the output path.

"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote :
Sorry, that statement cannot be correct. It would mean that the
impedance you measure at the near end of a transmission line
terminated by some arbitrary load at the far end) would depend
on the internal impedance of the device that's doing the
measuring - and that is not true, either in transmission-line
theory or in the real world. It is a function only of the line and
the load. etc

Richard Fry wrote:
How, then, do you explain the "ghost image" that can occur* in
analog(ue) TV transmission systems arising from reflections
at/near the antenna end of the station's transmission line?

*with sufficient round-trip propagation time in the transmission line

Ian White wrote:
Yes, that is a true observation, just as true as the one I made... so
now you have *two* different things to explain!

The so-called SWR meter is a steady-state instrument, so it always makes
sense to use that quicker, easier way of thinking. Since you're the one
who chooses to think of this particular situation in terms of multiple
reflections, any difficulties you encounter are entirely yours.

This reads to me as though you know they are there, but choose
to ignore them...?

If you ever see a conflict between two different theories that explain
the same observed facts, then there's an error somewhere.

We agree on the subject of conflict resolution, but apparently not on
the location of the error.

If the multiple-reflection theory is extrapolated to infinite time, so
that it calculates results for the steady state, it *must* give identical
results to the steady-state theory. But whenever the steady-state
theory can be used, it will always get you there much more quickly.

This is true only to the extent that all the power ever generated by the
transmitter eventually either is radiated by the antenna or is dissipated by
losses somewhere.

For simplicity, let's assume a tx with a source impedance of zero ohms feeds
a lossless transmission line of uniform impedance throughout its length to a
mismatch at the far end. The mismatch reflects a percentage of the incident
power back down the line to the tx, and continues to do so as long as the
transmitter generates power. The tx will re-reflect the reflected power
back to the far end -- in this case all of the reflected power it ever sees,
in fact. To this easily-seen, real-world reality you agreed above ("Yes,
that is a true observation, ...").

The re-reflections combine with the power generated by the tx at that
instant to create a vector sum at the sample point used by the meter. The
typical tx meter is a frequency-domain device, and cannot by itself separate
the RF output of the transmitter from re-/reflections of it. That requires
a time-domain device. So the magnitude of the transmission line samples
driving the tx RF metering circuits during normal operation under these
conditions become a function of both the source impedance and the
load impedance.

The defense rests.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:
This is true only to the extent that all the power ever generated by the
transmitter eventually either is radiated by the antenna or is dissipated by
losses somewhere.

The fly in the ointment is a definition.

If a signal generator is sourcing 100 watts and 20 watts of reflected
power is being dissipated in a circulator load resistor, we say the
source is sourcing 100 watts and 20 watts of reflected power is being
dissipated in the circulator load resistor.

If the identical thing happens in a ham transmitter, we say that the
source is sourcing 80 watts, BY DEFINITION. What's wrong with this
picture? Ham transmitters NEVER re-reflect anything, by definition.

The reason that the source impedance doesn't enter into the forward/reflected
power values is that it has been defined out of any relationship to them. By
definition, there is zero power re-reflected from a ham transmitter NO MATTER
WHAT THE IMPEDANCE OF THE HAM TRANSMITTER MIGHT BE. Never mind that we can see
those reflections with our own eyes in TV ghosting. We must be crazy because
they have been defined out of existence. How dare we have the gall to observe
them!
--
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! =-----

Richard Fry wrote:

Ian White wrote:
The so-called SWR meter is a steady-state instrument, so it always makes
sense to use that quicker, easier way of thinking. Since you're the one
who chooses to think of this particular situation in terms of multiple
reflections, any difficulties you encounter are entirely yours.

This reads to me as though you know they are there, but choose to
ignore them...?

Oh no, quite the opposite - but since these difficulties are entirely of
your own making, you get to do the work :-)

If you ever see a conflict between two different theories that explain
the same observed facts, then there's an error somewhere.

We agree on the subject of conflict resolution, but apparently not on
the location of the error.

Thank you for the more detailed explanation below... which, sure enough,
revealed where the error is.

If the multiple-reflection theory is extrapolated to infinite time, so
that it calculates results for the steady state, it *must* give identical
results to the steady-state theory. But whenever the steady-state
theory can be used, it will always get you there much more quickly.

This is true only to the extent that all the power ever generated by
the transmitter eventually either is radiated by the antenna or is
dissipated by losses somewhere.

That is exactly true in the steady state.

For simplicity, let's assume a tx with a source impedance of zero ohms
feeds a lossless transmission line of uniform impedance throughout its
length to a mismatch at the far end. The mismatch reflects a
percentage of the incident power back down the line to the tx, and
continues to do so as long as the transmitter generates power. The tx
will re-reflect the reflected power back to the far end -- in this case
all of the reflected power it ever sees, in fact. To this easily-seen,
real-world reality you agreed above ("Yes, that is a true observation, ...").

The re-reflections combine with the power generated by the tx at that
instant to create a vector sum at the sample point used by the meter.

There's the error: you can't "combine... power" in that way. You can
only create vector sums of voltage; and separately, vector sums of
current.

To make the multiple-reflection theory work correctly, you have to do
two separate vector sums at output port of the transmitter. First you
add all the voltage vectors: the 1st (original) forward, the 1st
reflected, the 2nd forward (re-reflected), 2nd reflected... and so on,
summed to infinity to give the correct result for the steady state.
Then you do the exactly same for all the forward and reflected current
vectors.

In order to account for reflection from the transmitter, you have to
assume some value of source impedance. Any value will do, for reasons
we'll see in a moment.

Now you can calculate two things: the vector ratio, which is the complex
impedance that the transmitter sees as a load; and the scalar product,
which is the power the transmitter can deliver into that load.

If you vary the source impedance of the transmitter, it will change all
the summed voltage vectors and all the summed current vectors - but each
voltage term in the sum will be changed by exactly the same factor as
its corresponding current term. Certainly the product (the output
power) will change, but the ratio (the load impedance) will not.

So, when correctly worked out, the load impedance is *not* a function of
the transmitter output impedance or the output power. Likewise, the
indication of the SWR meter is not a function of either the transmitter
output impedance or the output power - this last one being a well-known
fact.



--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

This has been explained many times, to no avail.

So instead of one of us explaining it yet again, I suggest that you do
the following experiment. It requires only a transmitter, one or two
dummy loads, an SWR meter, and no more than five minutes of your time.

1. Connect the transmitter to either a dummy load or an antenna through
the SWR meter and measure the SWR.

2. Connect the transmitter in parallel with a dummy load by using a tee
connector. Connect this parallel combination to the input of the SWR
meter, and the output of the SWR meter to the same load as before (dummy
load or antenna).

Do you see any change in the SWR?

If you don't, then something is wrong with your theory -- since the
source impedance is clearly different for the two measurements --, and
you should take the effort of resolving it with your recent observations.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Fry wrote:
"Ian White, G3SEK"wrote:

Richard Fry wrote:

"Ian White, G3SEK wrote

The meter measures nothing that involves the source, except
the level of RF that it supplies. It does not respond in any way
whatever to the source impedance.

Not that I said it did in my part of the thread, but nevertheless the

above

statement is not strictly true. In the case where the source Z of the tx

PA

does not match its load Z (which is typical), power reflected from the

load

mismatch will at least partly be re-reflected from the PA -- which then
contributes to the power sensed by a "wattmeter" in the output path.

Sorry, that statement cannot be correct. It would mean that the
impedance you measure at the near end of a transmission line (terminated
by some arbitrary load at the far end) would depend on the internal
impedance of the device that's doing the measuring - and that is not
true, either in transmission-line theory or in the real world. It is a
function only of the line and the load. etc

____________

How, then, do you explain the "ghost image" that can occur* in analog(ue) TV
transmission systems arising from reflections at/near the antenna end of the
station's transmission line?

*with sufficient round-trip propagation time in the transmission line

RF