Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim,
I have conceded. I simply do not know how to deal with someone who uses models to prove that models are misleading. Cecil's "reality", wherever that comes from, trumps all. I have not measured transmission lines in the vacuum of free space, so I must rely on models. Since Cecil claims some sort of devine connection to model-less reality he clearly must be correct. (Probably explains his intimate knowledge of reality in the vacuum of free space.) 73, Gene W4SZ Jim Kelley wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: Cecil, Nice try. Here's the reference: From "Fields and Waves" by Ramo and Whinnery. Take a close look at the exponential transmission line equations for flat lines (no reflections): V = Vmax(e^-az)(e^wt-bz) (1) I = Vmax(e^-az)(e^wt-bz)/Z0 (2) 'a' (alpha) is the attenuation factor. The two equations are identical except for the Z0 term. If you divide equation (1) by equation (2), you get Z0. In a flat transmission line (no reflections) the current is ALWAYS equal to the voltage divided by the characteristic impedance of the transmission line. The voltage and current are attenuated by EXACTLY the same factor. If the voltage drops because of I^2*R losses, the current must decrease by exactly the same percentage. (I have avoided calling it a current drop so it wouldn't upset you.) Since the attenuation factor is R/2*Z0 + G*Z0/2 and since, for most transmission lines used on HF, R/2*Z0 G*Z0/2, the current attenuation is caused by the series I^2*R drop in the voltage and the V/I=Z0 ratio that must be maintained - pretty simple logic. So Gene, you should have asked the question: if one has a circuit with a thousand resistors all connected in series and no current paths in shunt, how does one arrive at a different current through R1000 than through R1? 73, Jim AC6XG |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gene Fuller wrote:
Since Cecil claims some sort of devine connection to model-less reality he clearly must be correct. On the contrary - I don't believe in divinities at all. That's exactly why I don't worship math models (like some people I know) as if they possessed supernatural powers. It is ridiculous to try to force a distributed network problem to obey the rules of circuit analysis. The distributed network analysis model was developed specifically because distributed networks do NOT obey the boundary conditions necessary for the circuit analysis model to yield valid results. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Math models are tools. Please choose a valid one for whatever problem you are trying to solve. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
An easy experiment with a coil | Antenna | |||
NEWS - Researchers invent antenna for light | Antenna | |||
Lumped Load Models v. Distributed Coils | Antenna |