Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:51:09 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote: On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:40:20 GMT, Richard Clark wrote: At 30 MHz, this 1.5pF capacitance represents a reactance of 3.5K Ohm. This rather sweeps aside your specification for the load and replaces it with 4700 -j3537 Ohms. Actually 1700 -j2258 Ohms As you can see, this is the reason why open stubs are avoided. "Knowing" the parasitic capacitance is problematic. The fringing effect at the end is difficult to manage whereas a short is much simpler to define and implement. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Dear Richard, Each and every one of your concerns is deeply appreciated. I had seriously about measuring that 4700 ohm resistor by itself for just the reasons that you mention. The reason that I did not is quite simple. The Resistance dial on the General Radio Model 1606B RF Bridge only goes to 1000 ohms. C'est la Vie! I could have chosen a much lower resistance to start with, but then I would not have had the desired high SWR, which is critical to the experiment. You might well ask why I made the switch from a 1/4 wave open ended stub (at 10.6 Mhz) to the 30 MHz test using the same piece of line. That was to get a high SWR and still have reasonable confidence in the value without actually measuring it. Perhaps I should use a capacitor instead. That's still a possibility. I am thinking of doing it over with a measured 1 k resistor, and just accepting the SWR of only 20:1. I don't think I have any low ohm resistors that would give me something around 1 to 3 ohms and still be low inductance - not from my parts box. Actually, I doubt seriously that the capacitance effects are as bad as you are suggesting, but I won't argue that without some additional measurements. My reason for not going with a short circuit was even simpler. I wanted a concrete value for a non-zero load power. Regarding the artificial adjustment of the attenuation loss from around 0.9 up to about 1.72 did not bother me at the time that I did it, but I can see why it bothers an independant observer. I will have to do something about that, and perhaps doing it over with a 1 K resistor is the answer to all of that - so, here goes, and I will get back to you in a few hours. BTW - this is becoming more and more academic, since I think the real mystery has been resolved, but there's nothing like getting it wrapped up with a proper ribbon. 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 |