Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"William E. Sabin" sabinw@mwci-news wrote in message ...
.... The usage of complex conjugate Z0* becomes significant when calculating very large values of VSWR, according to some authors. But for these very large values of standing waves, the concept of VSWR is a useless numbers game anyway. For values of VSWR less that 10:1 the complex Z0 is plenty good enough for good quality coax. My working definition for SWR is (1+|rho|)/|(1-|rho|)|. (Note the overall absolute value in the denominator, so it never goes negative.) Rho, of course, is Vr/Vf = (Zload-Zo)/(Zload+Zo), no conjugates. In that way, when |rho|=1, that is, when |Vr|=|Vf|, SWR becomes infinite. When |rho|1, SWR comes back down, and corresponds _exactly_ to the Vmax/Vmin you would observe _IF_ you could propagate that Vr and Vf without loss to actually establish standing waves you could measure. I agree with Bill that all this is academic, but my working definition seems to me to be consistent with the _concept_ of SWR, and does not require me to be changing horses in mid-stream and remembering when to use a conjugate and when not to. I _NEVER_ use Zo* in finding rho. To me it's not so much a matter of nitpicking an area of no real practical importance as coming up with a firm definition I don't have to second-guess. Except on r.r.a.a., I don't seem to ever get into discussions about such things, but my definitions are easy to state up front so anyone I'm talking with can understand where I'm coming from on them. W.C. Johnson points out on page 150 that the concept: Pload = Pforward - Preflected is strictly correct only when Z0 is pure resistance. But the calculations of real power into the coax and real power into the load are valid and the difference between the two is the real power loss in the coax. For these calculations the complex value Z0 for moderately lossy coax is useful and adequate. The preoccupation with VSWR values is unfortunate and excruciatingly exact answers involve more nitpicking than is sensible. Agreed! And thanks for the reference re powers. Cheers, Tom |