Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Sez -
That's fine. I agree entirely, and it follows from my analysis and my conclusion. A similar analysis can be found in many texts. My offering to provide a large number of references has brought forth no interest from the most vocal participants, and they've also showed a lack of willingness to work through the simple math themselves. So I felt that it might be a good idea to post the derivation before more converts are made to this religion of proof-by-gut-feel-and-flawed-logic. =============================== YOUR analysis ! Oliver Heaviside worked it all out 120 years back. For those antagonists who are not willing, or are unable, or are too frightened, or are just too plain lazy to work through the simple ARITHMETIC themselves, download in a few seconds program COAXPAIR from website below and run immediately. It is designed to do exactly the calculations everybody is at war about. (And many more). Use any ordinary coax with an overal length of 30 dB or more at 1000 Hz (to ensure a nice negative angle of Zo) and terminate the line with its own calculated input impedance = Zo = Ro+jXo. Then terminate the line with its conjugate. Observe what happens to the reflection coefficient, SWR and actual overall loss. Observe what happens as line length is reduced. Program COAXPAIR (with other transmission line progs) has been sitting there for 2 years or more. --- ======================= Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.g4fgq.com ======================= |