Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
"In a reality of 359 other possible phase angles, how does a transmitter happen to always be in-phase to any reflection?" Connect any generator to any resistor, and current in the resistor is in-phase with the applied voltage. The Zo of the common transmission line is a reasonably good resistance. At radio frequencies, Zo is independent of frequency. The current in the incident wave is always in-phase with the voltage applied to a transmission line. The current in the reflected wave is always 180-degrees out-of-phase with the reflected voltage. It makes no difference which was inverted by reflection, the volts or tha amps, one, and only one, of them was flipped upside down. The transmission line can and does handle the reflected wave. Standing waves display interference between incident and reflected waves whiich ideally have in-phase and out-of-phase constituents. The fact that the Bird wattmeter works is evidence that the theory is correct at least until a better theory replaces existing theory. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
In a world of mismatches, how does it happen that the transmitter always sees an in-phase, resistive load?" It doesn`t. You can put a capacitor directly across its output terminals, and the transmitter will energize the capacitor. But, a transmission line is not a capacitor unless it is a short open circuit, or the equivalent. A transmission line is a distributed network of inductance and capacitance. This network transfers emergy in bucket brigade fashion. The "brigade" presents a resistive impedance to both the incident wave and to the reflected wave. Zo is an enforcer. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Clark wrote:
how does a transmitter happen to always be "in-phase" to any reflection? It doesn't. The reflected voltage can obviously be 90 degrees out of phase with the forward voltage in which case, the interference term equals zero, and the superposed voltage is SQRT(Vf^2+Vr^2), i.e. greater than Vf. (The argument reminds me of Gary Coffman's one-dimensional "spitting up the fire hose" argument.) -- 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! =----- |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard Harrison wrote:
Standing waves display interference between incident and reflected waves whiich ideally have in-phase and out-of-phase constituents. In the following, the interference term equals zero. XMTR--------1/8WL 50 ohm lossless coax------291.5 ohm load Forward power = 100w, reflected power = 50w. Vf = 70.7v at zero degrees, If = 1.4a at zero degrees Vr = 50v at 90 degrees, Ir = 1.0a at -90 degrees Superposing: Vtot = SQRT(Vf^2+Vr^2) = 86.6v over-voltage condition Itot = SQRT(If^2+Ir^2) = 1.72a over-current condition The phase angle between Vtot and Itot is about 70.4 degrees, i.e. the source sees a highly reactive impedance. Vtot is NOT in phase with Vf, Itot is NOT in phase with If, Vtot is NOT in phase with Itot. Vf is NOT in phase with Vr. No two voltages are in phase. No two currents are in 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! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SWR meter kaput? | Antenna | |||
Conjugate matching and my funky VSWR meter | Antenna | |||
10 meter ant impedance at 15 meter | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna |