Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:57:25 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote: Yes. But the ITT Reference Data For Radio Engineers uses this paper as a reference. If you have Mathcad, a sheet that implements some of the equations was included as a reference in my Balanced Transmission line paper. http://users.triconet.org/wesandlinda/LineCalc.mcd Dear Wes, I was happy to find that the MacAlpine paper is the first part of Chapter 22 of the ITT Handbook, as the latter is much more readable. I did not pick up on the MathCad files, because I do not have MathCd - however, the material from MacAlpine and Ricardi have answered most of my concerns. |I hope that MacAlpine agrees with what Dave and Richard are telling |me, because their responses seem to be correct and are exactly what I |was afraid of - that I've been sucked into another example of the |strange terminology used to describe "losses". | |I have always thought of "loss" as a conversion to another form of |energy (typically heat energy) which is lost from the system. |Apparently, the kind of "loss" being described in the example that I |gave is not a loss at all. I was premature in those two paragraphs, above. I can see now that the Additional Losses Due to SWR really are dissipative and are unrelated to the "Mismatch Losses" and "Transducer Losses" defined on page 22-12 of the ITT Handbook, 5th Ed. Yes it is. A simple-minded way of looking at it is if the SWR is greater than unity then increased current is flowing in the line. The line has resistive loss, so the I^2*R loss increases. The current isn't constant (there is a current standing ratio, ISWR, just like a VSWR) so there are peaks and valleys in the current and as you have figured out, the longer the line and the higher its nominal loss, the lower the ISWR is at the line input. My interpretation of your "Yes it is." is that you mean that the Additional Losses Due to SWR are truly heat losses and are due to the ohmic losses in the hot spots of the line. Then we agree on that point. Your paragraph above is much more succinct than the papers by MacAlpine and Ricardi, but it certainly tells the story. So the loss per unit length is non-linear and varies with distance from the mismatch, but it is a real dissipative loss. I don't know that I would have used the term "non-linear", but I would certainly agree that it varies along the line in accordance with the current loops. For those interested in the loss in the shorted or open stub case, maybe this will be of interest: http://users.triconet.org/wesandlind...ching_Loss.pdf I took that pdf and added it to the collection. There were several things about that paper that filled-in gaps of detail in MacAlpine. However, neither paper gives us much hope for a simple model of these losses. Nonetheless, it makes hash out of the material in The ARRL Antenna Book. In all fairness, the Antenna Book cannot cover all aspects of these topics in detail. Unfortunately, the material in the Antenna Book is, in my opinion, very misleading in several specific areas, as follows: - The Antenna Book gives only one expression for Total Line Loss (combining ML loss and the Additional Loss Due to SWR). If we accept Macalpine's model, there are different relationships for the range of SWR from 0 to 6 and for the range from 6 upwards. - Antenna Book does not explain that the hot spots are very localized and that the additional losses can be quite dependant upon the length of the line in wavelengths. For example, the losses in a segment of line less than 1/3 wavelength might be insignificant in comparison with a segment of line greater than 1/3 wavelength simply because the shorter segment may not contain a hot spot. In other words, one cannot apply the Antenna Book equations, blindly, because of several factors that are not even mentioned, and for short line segments it is quite possible that there would be no signicant losses due to SWR. - The most misleading information in The Antenna Book is on pages 24-11 and 24-12 where it is shown that a 100 foot RG-213 feedline will suffer 25 dB of Additional Loss Due to SWR at 1.83 MHz because of the very short antenna. I believe that when the equations from the ITT Handbook are used instead, that the actual losses will be far, far less. Just today, I made a careful measurement on an RG-8/U line of 5.33 meters length at 30 MHz and terminated with a 4700 + j 0 load. The Matched Line Loss of that line at 30 MHz is 0.9 dB per 100 feet, and its Velocity Factor is between 0.75 and 0.80 The input impedance was actually measured at 2.45 -j15 ohms for an SWR at the input of 22.25. The SWR at the load end was 94. Those two SWR's establish a total loss on the line of 0.15 dB. If one were to blindly apply the formula in The Antenna Book on page 24-9, the result obtained would be 4.323 dB. Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |