Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:

When was the last time you used
"G = C * R / L" for anything?


Yesterday.


Just curious, Cecil. What were you using a distortionless line
for?


Methinks you jumped to conclusions. Slick didn't ask when was
the last time I used a distortionless line. He asked when was
the last time I used the equation "G=C*R/L" for anything. I'm
using it right now. I used it yesterday to refresh my memory
about distortionless lines which I did use quite often before
I retired from Intel in 1998. If I presently held a job in the
cable modem group, I suppose I would still be using them.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I'm surprised the golden ears croud hasn't discovered distortionless
lines as a means of separating the gullible from their gold.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Dr. Slick wrote:
When was the last time you used
"G = C * R / L" for anything?

Yesterday.


Oh really? Please explain
in detail?


S.

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Dr. Slick wrote:
When was the last time you used
"G = C * R / L" for anything?

Yesterday.


Ok, kids, can you say:

"BULL****"?



Slick

Dear Reg,

The Smith Chart only constrains the normalizing quantity to be purely
resistive - not the characteristic impedance of a particular
transmission line being shown on that chart. My program, SmartSmith,
for example, allows the user to specify both an Ro and an Xo term for
all transmission line sections.

Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA

===================================

Hi Bob,

But your program is not a Smith Chart. It's probably better than a Smith
Chart.
----
Reg.

Bob, your program can probably calculate the input impedance, Rin + j*Xin,
of a line having Zo = Ro + j*Xo, with given attenuation Alpha dB, and given
phase-shift Beta radians, with a terminating impedance Rt + j*Xt.

Which is a commonly needed quantity on the way to calculating the ultimate,
all-important, single number, transmission efficiency.

But can you do it with nothing at hand except a Smith Chart?
----
Yours, Reg.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:05:13 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:
But can you do it with nothing at hand except a Smith Chart?
Turn the chart over and write the math on the back - GEEZ

Turn the chart over and write the math on the back - GEEZ

===========================
Can you do it yourself within 3 months? It will take that long to dig out
the formulae.


I've just realised this is the first occasion I've ever been at the bottom
end Z of a newsgroup message listing. You can't get any lower!
----
Yours, Punchinello.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:02:37 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Turn the chart over and write the math on the back - GEEZ

Can you do it yourself within 3 months? It will take that long to dig out
the formulae.

Turn the chart back over and save yourself the time. Any more effort
will burn more calories than any transmission line.

I've just realised this is the first occasion I've ever been at the bottom
end Z of a newsgroup message listing. You can't get any lower!

You can if you start the thread and no one comes to the party.

It's been said that if you haven't failed - you aren't trying hard
enough.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC