Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 09:50 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Harrison wrote:
I don`t have a dog in this fight.


Neither do I, Richard. The ARRL Antenna Book seems to assume that
the loss in a line is proportional to forward power plus reflected
power. If reflected power equals zero, then the losses are matched
line losses. I posted an example through Google to which nobody
responded so I will re-post it he
************************************************** ********************
Here's an example. Assume 100w is delivered to the load for both the
matched and unmatched conditions. Assume 3dB matched line loss in the
transmission line. Assume an SWR of 5.83:1 (rho=0.707) at the load for
the mismatched condition.

Forward 200w------------3dB loss-------------Matched Load 100w


Forward 400w------------3dB loss-------------Mismatched Load 100w
Reflected 50w both Forward 200w
directions Reflected 100w

The ARRL equations give an additional loss of 5.44dB.
************************************************** ********************
It is obvious (to me) that if there are reflections at the load, then
more power must be sourced in order to deliver the same amount of power
to the load. But I am pretty simple-minded about obvious things. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

  #42   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 12:30 AM
Richard Harrison
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Assume 3 dB matched line loss in the transmission line. Assume an SWR
of 5.83:1 (rho=0.707) at the load for the mismatched condition."

Using 100 watts forward and 50 watts reflected into the "Antenna Book"
graph gives an SWR of 5 or 6. If I had my Bird SWR sliderule at hand, I
could be more precise without lifting a calculator.

According to the "additional line loss graph", this SWR adds about 2 dB
to a matched loss of 3 dB for a total loss of about 5 dB with such a
mismatch.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

  #43   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 05:17 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reg Edwards wrote:
For example, in a large number of cases the single output quantity is
related to line loss, such as insertion loss in dB, or load power in watts,
or transmission efficiency in percent, or percent of input power lost in the
line itself.

But before this can be calculated it is essential to calculate input
impedance Rin+jXin for given attenuation in dB or nepers, given phase shift
in radians and given terminating impedance Rt+jXt. Then include generator
impedance Rg+jXg and internal generator volts. Having done this you are
half-way through.


Well Reg, I have a question about transmission line losses expressed in dB.
As you know, furnishing line losses in dB implies a power ratio. For a matched
line, transmission line losses in dB will be based on the ratio of power
not delivered to the load Vs the power being sourced. For instance, if
100 watts is being sourced and 95 watts are accepted by the load, then
5 watts of the 100 watts are line losses, or ~0.21 dB.

But to what power are the transmission losses referenced when reflected
power is allowed to be incident upon the source. For instance, assume
that at the source, we are reading 100 watts forward power and 85 watts
reflected power. That means the source is supplying a NET power of
15 watts to the system. If 10 watts of the total NET power of 15 watts
is being accepted by the load (implying 5 watts of line losses) does
that mean the power ratio for line losses is 33%, or 1.25 dB of losses?

Note from the matched line example above where 5 watts of line losses are
0.21 dB to the mismatched line example where 5 watts of line losses are
1.25 dB (for the same forward power of 100w), the same magnitude of loss
appears much higher as a dB value referenced to NET source power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
  #44   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 05:55 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:17:05 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
As you know, furnishing line losses in dB implies a power ratio.

dB is dimensionless. Such generalizations forced into logic become
naive paradoxes:
Note from the matched line example above where 5 watts of line losses are
0.21 dB to the mismatched line example where 5 watts of line losses are
1.25 dB (for the same forward power of 100w), the same magnitude of loss
appears much higher as a dB value referenced to NET source power.

with boundary conditions being violated with the substitution of
Mismatch Loss for Dissipative Loss - and done poorly too.

When I had you thank Bart for his teachings, you should have examined
the consequences of his lesson not simply his correction of your
error.
  #45   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 07:11 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
As you know, furnishing line losses in dB implies a power ratio.


dB is dimensionless. Such generalizations forced into logic become
naive paradoxes:


Uhhhhhhh Richard, a power ratio *IS* dimensionless. Any ratio of like
quantities is dimensionless. dB is proportional to the log of the ratio
of two quantities. That ratio, e.g. of two powers, is dimensionless.

Note from the matched line example above where 5 watts of line losses are
0.21 dB to the mismatched line example where 5 watts of line losses are
1.25 dB (for the same forward power of 100w), the same magnitude of loss
appears much higher as a dB value referenced to NET source power.


with boundary conditions being violated with the substitution of
Mismatch Loss for Dissipative Loss - and done poorly too.


I certainly didn't intend to do that. The dissipative loss in each
of the examples was 5 watts. The NET source power was 100 watts in
the matched case and 15 watts in the mismatched case.

When I had you thank Bart for his teachings, you should have examined
the consequences of his lesson not simply his correction of your
error.


I'm asking an honest question, Richard. Why can't you provide an
honest answer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


  #46   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 08:07 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:11:24 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I certainly didn't intend to do that.

The dog ate your homework? Shoot the dog, that excuse is too common.
  #47   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 08:12 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Clark wrote:
When I had you thank Bart for his teachings, you should have examined
the consequences of his lesson not simply his correction of your
error.


dB was not mentioned at all in Bart's posting so your comment
appears to be just an ad hominem shot in the dark. My news-
server indicates that Bart has not posted to this thread.

Let me ask my question again.

Given the dB equation for power, 10*log(P1/P2), when we say
the transmission line losses are 1 dB, what is P2 in the
denominator if it is not NET source power? There has to be
a standard. I just am not sure what that standard is. My
question is: What is the standard if not NET source power?

The magnitude of power available for being lost in transmission
line losses certainly cannot exceed the forward power minus the
reflected power, i.e. cannot exceed the NET source power. It seems
to follow that P2 in the equation must necessarily be NET power so
that transmission line losses are a percentage of the total power
available to be lost in transmission line. What am I missing?

In the previous examples, the 5 watt loss in the matched case was
5% of the NET source power of 100w. In the mismatched case, the 5
watt loss was 33% of the NET source power of 15w. It seems to follow
that the line loss in the matched case is about 0.2 dB of the 100w
of power available to be lost while the line loss in the mismatched
case is about 1.2 dB of the 15w of power available to be lost.

I'm still trying to explain the difference between Bob's dB loss
and the ARRL's dB loss. So an obvious question arose: Are they
using the same P2 in the denominator of the dB equation?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
  #48   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 08:28 PM
Richard Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:12:39 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
What am I missing?
... It seems to follow

Violation of initial conditions do not allow anything to follow but
distorted logic. And the example is poorly done (incorrect).

You are missing coming to terms with Bart's lesson - still.
  #49   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 09:07 PM
Reg Edwards
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cecil asked,

But to what power are the transmission losses referenced when reflected
power is allowed to be incident upon the source.


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

Cecil, when there are several different power levels at different places in
a circuit, it is entirely up to you how you reference one to another in dB.
It's just a matter of convenience with the particular problem in hand.

But things are certain to become confused and indeterminate when your
imagination allows two or more different power levels at the same place at
the same time. For example: the so called forward and reflected power
levels.

Imagination is assisted by the existence of meters which claim to measure
these imaginary forward and reflected powers. Actually they do nothing of
the sort. They even purport to make measurements on non-existent
transmission lines.

Reflected volts - yes!
Reflected current - yes!
Reflected power - NO!

(PS : You can't deal with reflections without involving Distance, Velocity,
Place and Time.)
----
Reg.


  #50   Report Post  
Old December 1st 04, 09:47 PM
Cecil Moore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Richard Clark wrote:
You are missing coming to terms with Bart's lesson - still.


It's a pretty simple question that, so far, no one has
answered, not even Bart. dB is always a comparison of
one thing to another. To what is the line loss in watts
being compared?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
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 07:24 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