Cecil,

Do you s'pose that if the equality is perfect for zero-loss lines then
maybe it is an useful approximation for low-loss lines?

Do you really think R&W were proposing that this simple relationship is
more appropriate for low loss lines than for zero loss lines?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Try it.

I believe you will find that your equality requirement on angles
reduces to precisely the simple equation offer by Reg.


Exactly! That's why I wonder why Ramo and Whinnery said it's an
approximation.

Wonder why Ramo and Whinnery say that's an approximation for low-loss
lines? If the R+jwL angle is equal to the G+jwC angle, doesn't that
make Z0 purely resistive?

--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:
Do you s'pose that if the equality is perfect for zero-loss lines then
maybe it is an useful approximation for low-loss lines?

Do you really think R&W were proposing that this simple relationship is
more appropriate for low loss lines than for zero loss lines?

Nope, exactly the opposite. Apparently, they were proposing that this
simple relationship doesn't hold for highly lossy lines. Chipman also
has something to say about highly lossy lines.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp