Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|