Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 10:26 PM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks.

So between equations 8.29 and 8.30 the author calculates VSWR without
any source-related terms -- as every other textbook author does.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

|I offer a third third response.
|
|On p. 175, Chipman states:
|
|"Equation (8.27) demonstrates explicitly that the shape of a standing
|wave pattern representing |V(d)| as a function of d on a transmission
|line is in no way affected by the quantities Vs, Zs and [rho]s at the
|source."
|
|And equation 8.29 on p. 176, the calculation of reflection coefficient,
|contains no source-dependent terms. I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
|the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.

Indeed he does---on the next page.

http://users.triconet.org/wesandlind...manPage177.pdf

Equation (8.30)

1 + |rho|
VSWR -------------
1 - |rho|



  #32   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 10:58 PM
Wes Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

|I offer a third third response.
|
|On p. 175, Chipman states:
|
|"Equation (8.27) demonstrates explicitly that the shape of a standing
|wave pattern representing |V(d)| as a function of d on a transmission
|line is in no way affected by the quantities Vs, Zs and [rho]s at the
|source."
|
|And equation 8.29 on p. 176, the calculation of reflection coefficient,
|contains no source-dependent terms. I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
|the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.
|
|These are the facts:
|
|1. The SWR, positions of the standing waves, reflection coefficient seen
|looking into the line, impedance seen looking into the line, and dB line
|loss are independent of source impedance.
|2. The actual amount of power delivered to a line for a given Thevenin
|source voltage will, of course, depend on the source impedance, just as
|it would if the source were directly connected to a load. Therefore, the
|absolute amount of power dissipated in the load depends on source
|impedance. The dB line loss, however, doesn't. Also, the length of time
|the line requires to reach equilibrium after initially turning on the
|source depends on the source impedance.
|
|These can be found, explicitly stated and/or in easily interpreted
|equation form, in a host of references.
|
|I see nothing in the text Wes has kindly posted which contradicts these
|facts, and I'm sure there's nothing elsewhere in the text that does.
|
|I often have a hard time understanding Richard's postings, so it's
|possible that he's not disagreeing with the statements I've made,
|either. If so, I apologize for the misinterpretation.

In an earlier post to this thread, Richard stated:

|"This is yet another of my references that attend to my recent, short
|thread on the nature of power determination error, and mismatched
|loads AND sources. In fact ALL of these references I've offered
|explicitly describe that the source MUST be matched for ANY of these
|equations about transmission lines bandied about to accurately offer
|true answers. The naive presumptions that Source Z is immaterial to
|the outcome of analysis is quite widespread here."

I almost demurred, much as Roy did, because this statement is not
universal, but I held off because I believe (and hope) that Richard is
talking only about *power* measurement errors.

Wes
  #33   Report Post  
Old November 29th 04, 11:10 PM
Wes Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

|I offer a third third response.
|
|On p. 175, Chipman states:
|
|"Equation (8.27) demonstrates explicitly that the shape of a standing
|wave pattern representing |V(d)| as a function of d on a transmission
|line is in no way affected by the quantities Vs, Zs and [rho]s at the
|source."
|
|And equation 8.29 on p. 176, the calculation of reflection coefficient,
|contains no source-dependent terms. I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
|the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.

Indeed he does---on the next page.

http://users.triconet.org/wesandlind...manPage177.pdf

Equation (8.30)

1 + |rho|
VSWR -------------
1 - |rho|



  #34   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 12:14 AM
Roy Lewallen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Once again, it's not clear to me just what you're trying to prove.

Do you disagree with either of the two numbered statements made in my
posting? If so, which part(s) of which one(s) -- I'm sure I can
demonstrate their correctness. If not, we probably don't disagree.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.



Hi Roy,

No doubt. As I am not immediately interested in the reductionist art
of SWR, then the remainder seemed of little relevance to line losses
and the contribution of source Z to power determination error.

You continue, in part quote of a part quote:

representing |V(d)| as a function of d


which given you offer no more comment upon it, gives me the impression
you are unaware of what function d is. The point of the matter is that
this very equation you chose is examined in isolation, by you, but is
returned to on several occasions by Chipman where he quite
"explicitly" exhibits how V(d) ranges wildly for situations where both
ends of the line are terminated by forced mismatches. This is a
uncommon technique for determining SWR (still not my point, but
nonetheless an obvious example).

And yes, I realize

I often have a hard time understanding Richard's postings


and I often grieve over this on long winter evenings. Roy, you are
too coy by half. ;-)

However, your aside into SWR shape and the focus on reductions to
typical applications (source matches line) does leave a dilemma
because there is now conflict between your isolated quote of Chipman
and the demonstration of EZNEC as reported by my late, short lived
thread. I would offer that EZNEC fully supports Chipman's other
comments on this same quoted material you drew from him, and goes to
the matter I offered of an uncommon technique for SWR determination.
My EZNEC reports are also supported by bench results, and other
sources also recited here. All this seems to leave you on the outside
looking in. As it broaches upon topics that you have long cautioned
me that discussion would not "change your mind," I doubt this will go
any further.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

  #35   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 12:18 AM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I see nothing in the text Wes has kindly posted which contradicts these
facts, and I'm sure there's nothing elsewhere in the text that does.


None of us are perfect. All of us (except Jim Kelley :-) will admit to
being human, i.e. capable of making a mistake. The Z(s) of the source,
no doubt, has an effect on the power sourced by the source. But the
"power sourced by the source" has no effect on SWR, which is independent
of source impedance. Given a steady-state forward power, nothing else
depends upon source impedance. If a one ohm source is capable of
supplying the same voltage as a one megohm source, the steady-state
results will be identical.

Given any source with any source impedance, there exists a forward
power. Given any forward power, the source impedance during steady-
state is completely irrelevant.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


  #36   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 12:30 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:57:16 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I'm sure that somewhere in the book,
the author derives SWR in terms of reflection coefficient.


Hi Roy,

No doubt. As I am not immediately interested in the reductionist art
of SWR, then the remainder seemed of little relevance to line losses
and the contribution of source Z to power determination error.

You continue, in part quote of a part quote:
representing |V(d)| as a function of d

which given you offer no more comment upon it, gives me the impression
you are unaware of what function d is. The point of the matter is that
this very equation you chose is examined in isolation, by you, but is
returned to on several occasions by Chipman where he quite
"explicitly" exhibits how V(d) ranges wildly for situations where both
ends of the line are terminated by forced mismatches. This is a
uncommon technique for determining SWR (still not my point, but
nonetheless an obvious example).

And yes, I realize
I often have a hard time understanding Richard's postings

and I often grieve over this on long winter evenings. Roy, you are
too coy by half. ;-)

However, your aside into SWR shape and the focus on reductions to
typical applications (source matches line) does leave a dilemma
because there is now conflict between your isolated quote of Chipman
and the demonstration of EZNEC as reported by my late, short lived
thread. I would offer that EZNEC fully supports Chipman's other
comments on this same quoted material you drew from him, and goes to
the matter I offered of an uncommon technique for SWR determination.
My EZNEC reports are also supported by bench results, and other
sources also recited here. All this seems to leave you on the outside
looking in. As it broaches upon topics that you have long cautioned
me that discussion would not "change your mind," I doubt this will go
any further.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #37   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 03:28 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:14:42 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
Once again, it's not clear to me just what you're trying to prove.


Hi Roy,

Troubles me too....

In the interim I have recognized where I went off the deep end in the
thread I have alluded to. The attempt there was to reproduce, in
EZNEC, results obtained at the bench and offered through various
references which demonstrate Mismatch Uncertainty. Although the model
of the transmission line was certainly of the highest quality, EZNEC
lacks the capacity to separate forward and reverse waves for analysis.
In that regard I mistakenly attributed the results I obtained to my
bench results.

Situation is that with a SWR meter moving along a line mismatched at
both ends, there is a distinct variation in the computed Power. When
I did this at the bench, I could evidence about a 30% variation which
was consistent with theory and clearly exhibits the contribution of
Source Z when it is other than 50 Ohms. When I recently attempted to
model this in EZNEC, I again saw the wild fluctuation of power that
seduced me with its complementary results into thinking I had achieved
the same results. When I revisited those results (EZNEC ones that
is), all I had done was prove the mismatch through the abstraction of
the power reported at my moving test load. When I reverse engineered
the voltages from the known R, it became obvious that the VSWR
corresponded to every expectation - or was close enough given the
degree of resolution I had available with 20 test points distributed
along the line. Chipman describes this in his late chapters - one of
which Wes has provided.

However, this does nothing to detract from Chipman's work that
includes the FULL treatment of all variables that lead to the common
usages. Such treatments include the Source with full
characterizations and goes on to discuss the R of the Source and not
just its Z. That so many texts disregard this level of examination
does not deny its importance to issues that go beyond SWR. Those
lesser texts presume Source Z unlike Chipman, and its significance is
lost to the student who hasn't been grounded in the fundamentals. And
thus we arrive at the topic at hand and listed in the Subject Line:
Additional Line Losses Due to SWR. In that regard, the Source Z is
entirely an active player and any additional mismatch that it presents
to the system eventually finds additional loss (caloric) injected into
it. Chipman's work in that regard is complete enough to offer Bob the
framework to render a complete solution and to explain how and why
this additional loss appears. It may not bear on his measurements
directly (the measure of a stub's Q as it eventually turns out), but
it is related closely enough to provide tangible leads.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #38   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 05:18 AM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Clark wrote:
Chipman's work in that regard is complete enough to offer Bob the
framework to render a complete solution and to explain how and why
this additional loss appears. It may not bear on his measurements
directly (the measure of a stub's Q as it eventually turns out), but
it is related closely enough to provide tangible leads.


The fact remains that a transmission line/antenna system has the
same characteristics whether one watt, 100 watts, or 1000 watts
are input to it, i.e. the efficiency and SWR of the antenna system
does not depend upon the source impedance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
  #39   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 08:32 AM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:18:56 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
the efficiency and SWR of the antenna system
does not depend upon the source impedance.

Life's like a box of chocolates, hmmm? Get off the bench.
  #40   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 08:50 PM
Richard Harrison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roy, W7EL wrote:
"I`m sure that somewhere in the book the author (Chipman) derives SWR in
terms of reflection coefficient."

I`ve read, here I believe, that Chipman`s book is one of the "Schaum`s
Outline" series. It would need to derive SWR in terms of reflection
coefficient to be complete.

Attenuation of a uniform transmission line is a function of the loss per
unit length and the total length. A line with SWR has higher voltage and
current in spots than a matched line. Thus it has higher loss. Analysis
is complicated in lossy lines due to decline in SWR back from the
reflection point. If SWR at the reflection point is less than 2:1, added
loss due to SWR is hardly detectable. Such a line is considered perfect.

The ARRL Antenna Book has graphs relating SWR to fopward and reflected
power readings as given by a Bird wattmeter. The "Antenna Book" also has
a graph of additional loss due to standing waves versus the SWR at the
load for values between SWR=1.5 and SWR=20.

I don`t have a dog in this fight. There is nothing particularly strange
about solutions to equations which describe particular relations on a
transmission line. The functions are not erratic but continuous and
predictable. Selection of the right formulas is all that`s needed to get
the right answer from the right data.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement Yuri Blanarovich Antenna 69 December 5th 03 03:11 PM
Complex line Z0: A numerical example Roy Lewallen Antenna 11 September 13th 03 01:04 AM
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) Dr. Slick Antenna 199 September 12th 03 10:06 PM
Re-Normalizing the Smith Chart (Changing the SWR into the same load) Dr. Slick Antenna 98 August 30th 03 03:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017