Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:20:32 GMT, (Robert Lay
W9DMK) wrote: Bob, You might want to look at this paper: http://users.triconet.org/wesandlinda/AIEE_High_Swr.pdf |Various authors provide curves or formula for computing the "total |loss" in transmission lines, as opposed to the "matched-line" loss. |Specifically, The ARRL Antenna Book gives an equation in Chapter 24 |that seems to give results consistent with other sources (See the |details at the end of this posting). However, there seems to be a |fundamental flaw in the way in which the equation is applied. | |In essence, the equation provides a loss factor which is a function of |the matched-loss attenuation and the absolute reflection coefficient. |The matched-loss attenuation is the value normally expressed in dB per |100 ft. and shown in tables or shown in logarithmic plots as a |function of frequency. The reflection coefficient is introduced into |the expression in order to increase the total losses as the SWR on the |line increases. | |After calculating a total loss factor it is applied to lines of any |length based on the reflection coefficient at the load. In my opinion, |it makes no sense whatsoever to provide an expression that is to |determine the losses per unit length on a line and have it based on |the reflection coefficient at the end of the line. If there is a |mismatched load, and if the line has losses, then it follows that the |SWR will become lower and lower the further we are from the |termination. That being the case, would it not make more sense to say |that the "additional" losses would be much higher at the load end of |the line, where the SWR is high, than at great distance from the load, |where the SWR is significantly lower? In fact, if the line is long |enough, we know that the SWR approaches 1:1, and in a line with an SWR |of 1:1 there should be no additional losses above the matched-line |losses. | |Nonetheless, with that non-sensical approach, the numerical examples |shown at the referenced page and also in a later article on the |subject of Highly Reactive Loads makes it quite clear that the loss |factor is applied uniformly to the entire length of line. | |If we take the expression for the total loss and apply it to small |increments of line wherein the SWR is relatively constant, then it not |only makes more sense, but it also predicts noticeably less total loss |in longer lines. | |I have embarked on careful measurements of lines severely mismatched |(quarter wave open circuit stubs), and I can find no correlation |between my measurements and the values predicted by the "total loss" |equation. My measurements always show very low losses in comparison to |the model. | |I would be interested in corresponding with anyone who has other |models for line losses, or anyone who has made measurements on |quarter-wave stubs. | |##########Equation and data taken directly from The ARRL Antenna Book, |17th Ed., page 24-9 ############### |(Eq 10) Total Loss (dB) = 10 log [ {(Alpha * Alpha - (AbsRho * |AbsRho)} / {Alpha * (1- (AbsRho * AbsRho)) } ] | |where | | Alpha = 10^(ML/10) = matched-line loss ratio | | AbsRho = (SWR - 1) / (SWR + 1) | |where | ML = the matched-line loss for particular length of line, in |dB | | SWR = SWR at load end of line | |The text then goes on with a numeric example using a 150 ft. length of |RG-213 coax that is terminated in a 4:1 mismatch (SWR = 4:1, AbsRho = |0.6) at 14.2 MHz. The calculations for total line loss, per the above |equation, results in a total line loss of 2.107 dB. | | | | |Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA |http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement | Antenna | |||
Complex line Z0: A numerical example | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Re-Normalizing the Smith Chart (Changing the SWR into the same load) | Antenna |