LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 28th 04, 11:53 PM
Wes Stewart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:41:44 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

|On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:43:14 GMT, (Robert Lay
|W9DMK) wrote:
|
| 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.
|
|Hi Bob,
|
|I've let this simmer for a while, but I have to return to this because
|you've erred in interpretation of this particular page and those
|particular subjects. They are entirely caloric losses, not what you
|dismiss as the myth of mismatch loss.
|
|You need only review the math offered to observe they use the
|conventional "real" line loss and add more "real" line loss in
|proportion to the reflections at either one or two interfaces. The
|equations are quite literal to this and explicitly state:
| A0 = normal attenuation of line
|
|If you want deeper math, one source can be found in Chipman's (as
|unread as any here) "Transmission Lines."
|
|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.
|
|Chipman offers the rigorous math that attends explicitly to the Smith
|Chart loss nomograph you reference elsewhere in this thread. If you
|lack access to this work, I can munge up the equations here for you.

Richard,

If you wouild cite the pages to which you refer, I would gladly scan
then to pdf and post them for all to reference.

Wes


|I will add, this math is for "lossless" lines, as is the implication
|of the Smith Chart nomograph; but it only requires you to add that in
|for yourself by restructuring the math to include loss. At that level
|of granularity, it won't be pretty; but you can rest assured it will
|be complete.
|
|73's
|Richard Clark, KB7QHC

 
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 02:11 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 06:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017