"Reg Edwards" wrote in message ...
"Dr. Slick" wrote
What about the ARRL?
================================

Dear Slick, you must be new round this neck of the
woods.

Don't you realise the ARRL bibles are written by the
same sort of people who haggle with you on this
newsgroup?


Well, yeah, the "A" stands for amateur, right?

But it seems the hams don't even trust one another, which
really, as we have shown here, can lead to new insights.

Mistrust is actually good science.

Slick

"Tarmo Tammaru" wrote in message ...
"Dr. Slick" wrote in message
om...
What exactly do you mean by Zr at point z=0? i don't fully
understand the page you sent, and neither do you obviously.


Lower case z is distance, with the load at z=0

If the power RC is the square of the MAGNITUDE of the voltage
RC, then a voltage RC 1 will lead to a power RC 1.

He squares it to get the magnitude of the vector. There is still a phase
angle

How do you get more reflected power than incident power into a
passive network, praytell??


You don't. at gamma =2.41, the phase angle is about 65 degrees, and the real
part of gamma =1.0


What??!? if gamma, or rho, is greater than one, the reflected
power is definitely greater than the incident!




Now try this: using the conjugate formula, calculate gamma for the case
where the line is terminated in a short circuit, and tell us how that meets
the boundary condition.

Tam/WB2TT


Now try this: understand the page you sent me before you attempt
to discuss it with others!


Slick

Do I have this right?

Dr Slick examined the generally accepted formula for rho
and learned that its magnitude can be greater than one.

This appears to imply that reflected power is greater
than incident; something that would violate various
conservation of energy laws.

Dr Slick has therefore rejected the generally accepted
formula and produced one which does not result in
more power being reflected than is incident, thus
satisfying various conservation of energy laws.

Many people took issue with this redefinition of rho
and attempted to show why the generally accepted formula
is correct.

But that does not address the issue with the generally
accepted formula; how can reflected power be greater
than incident?

A clear explanation of why rho greater than one
does not violate conservation of energy would seem
to remove Dr Slick's objection to the generally
accepted formula and then everyone could agree
on the formula.

I doubt that any proof of the correctness of the generally
accepted formula will convince Dr Slick until it is
shown why it does not violate conservation of energy.

....Keith

Reg Edwards wrote:

Given a line's primary characteristics, R,L,C,G,
length, or it's secondary characteristics Zo, dB, phase
angle, plus the line's terminatiing impedance it is
possible to calculate, by classical methods, all other
quantities of engineering interest - WITHOUT ANY
REFERENCE TO REFLECTION COEFFICIENT OR SWR which are
mere man-made notions supposed to assist understanding
of what goes on in the real world but, as exchanges on
this newsgroup show, are just a pair of bloody useless
nuisances.

Nevertheless, the outer circle of the Smith chart
is *always*
the locus of zero positive resistance and infinite
SWR, and a rho vector cannot terminate on, or
cross over, this circle when a load R0 is
present, regardless of the rest of the circuit,
including any possible combination of resistances
and reactances and complex Z0.

One can argue "ignore rho=1 and just jump over
it". This cannot be done in good mathematics.

Dismissing rho and SWR as "contrived nuisances" is
a convenient way to get rid of this problem, but
it does not "wash". Rho and SWR are fundamental
properties of transmission lines that do not go
away, and a non-zero R precludes rho=1.0.

Any attempt to circumvent (bypass) these small
inconveniences is doomed to failure, regardless of
the analytic geometry considerations.

Bill W0IYH

William E. Sabin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:


Given a line's primary characteristics, R,L,C,G,
length, or it's secondary characteristics Zo, dB, phase
angle, plus the line's terminatiing impedance it is
possible to calculate, by classical methods, all other
quantities of engineering interest - WITHOUT ANY
REFERENCE TO REFLECTION COEFFICIENT OR SWR which are
mere man-made notions supposed to assist understanding
of what goes on in the real world but, as exchanges on
this newsgroup show, are just a pair of bloody useless
nuisances.


Nevertheless, the outer circle of the Smith chart is *always*
the locus of zero positive resistance and infinite SWR, and a rho vector
cannot terminate on, or cross over, this circle when a load R0 is
present, regardless of the rest of the circuit, including any possible
combination of resistances and reactances and complex Z0.

One can argue "ignore rho=1 and just jump over it". This cannot be done
in good mathematics.

Dismissing rho and SWR as "contrived nuisances" is a convenient way to
get rid of this problem, but it does not "wash". Rho and SWR are
fundamental properties of transmission lines that do not go away, and a
non-zero R precludes rho=1.0.

Any attempt to circumvent (bypass) these small inconveniences is doomed
to failure, regardless of the analytic geometry considerations.

Bill W0IYH


Power wave theory avoids the Smith chart, since
there are no transmission lines. Scattering
matrices are used instead. Nevertheless, rho is
still an important parameter, but it does not
involve distance separation between generator and
load as a parameter.

Bill W0IYH

Richard Clark wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
So how do you get the reflections in a single source system to be
incoherent?

Two reflective interfaces with an aperiodic distance between.

That won't do it unless the distance between them is somehow
dynamically changing. For fixed distances, steady-state signals
will be coherent.

The example of the challenge serves to illuminate (pun intended) the
logical shortfall of those here who insist that a Transmitter exhibits
no Z, or that it is unknowable (to them, in other words), or that it
reflects all power that returns to it (to bolster their equally absurd
notion that the Transmitter does not absorb that power).

This is a convenient rule-of-thumb, nothing more. It solves the
problem of something being unknowable. A source obeys the rules
of the wave reflection model. Unfortunately, we don't usually
know the exact value of source impedance seen by the reflected
waves. Thus, the rule-of-thumb.

Engineers and scientists simply converse with the
tacit agreement that the source matches the line when going into the
discussion of SWR (and why Chapman plainly says this up front on the
page quoted earlier). This is so commonplace that literalists who
lack the background (and skim read) fall into a trap of asserting some
pretty absurd things. It follows that for these same literalists, any
evidence to the contrary is anathema, heresy, or insanity - people
start wanting to "help" you :-P

I agree with Chipman on that.

Now, be advised that when I say "accurately" that this is of concern
only to those who care for accuracy.

That's the part I don't understand. You can assume a whole range of
impedances for the source while the forward power and reflected power
remain the same. Is "accuracy" somehow involved with efficiency?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message . com...

So many people work at Besser Associates, this REx guy is some nobody.

They changed the course just from one email from YOU? LOL!

Ah, Garvin, thank you for confirming once again that you don't
actually read what others post, even though you do respond abrasively,
childishly. Rex is their Engineering Director. He didn't say they
changed the course because of me, he said he couldn't find the formula
with conjugate in it in their "more popular course which covers linear
RF circuits," and they are now (and have for some time been) teaching
it with the unconjugated formula. He also said their course is based
on Gonzalez (see 1 below), a book that's been recommended to you by
some other posters. That was all in my posting of his reply to my
query, to which you responded, so presumably you actually read it.

I suppose in your mental state you believe that anyone who doesn't
agree with you is a nobody. Has that reduced you to posting
misrepresentations of what others have said, as you have here? Has
that reduced you to calling honest people liars? I have a good friend
who is schizophrenic, and he is rather that way. He lives in a
fantasy world which his mind has created for him, and to him it's
reality. It has taken quite a toll on him in other ways. It's very
sad to see. It's a disease I wouldn't wish on anybody. I hope you
are not suffering from the same disease, though I honestly do see
strong similarities in the way you respond to people.

The lone argument you have given (for a |Vr/Vf| not greater than
unity) is based only on your intuition, and just as intuition fails us
for some other physical phenomena, it does in this case. Those who
have gone through a careful development of the model we use understand
all this. Why are you even worried about it? It's pretty clear to me
you have no real interest in using or understanding it.

Cheers,
Tom

(1) From Rex's email: "This is in agreement with Guillermo
Gonzalez's text, "Microwave Transistor Amplifiers," which is one of
the references used in writing
the course."

William E. Sabin wrote:
William E. Sabin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:


Given a line's primary characteristics, R,L,C,G,
length, or it's secondary characteristics Zo, dB, phase
angle, plus the line's terminatiing impedance it is
possible to calculate, by classical methods, all other
quantities of engineering interest - WITHOUT ANY
REFERENCE TO REFLECTION COEFFICIENT OR SWR which are
mere man-made notions supposed to assist understanding
of what goes on in the real world but, as exchanges on
this newsgroup show, are just a pair of bloody useless
nuisances.



Nevertheless, the outer circle of the Smith chart is *always*
the locus of zero positive resistance and infinite SWR, and a rho
vector cannot terminate on, or cross over, this circle when a load R0
is present, regardless of the rest of the circuit, including any
possible combination of resistances and reactances and complex Z0.

One can argue "ignore rho=1 and just jump over it". This cannot be
done in good mathematics.

Dismissing rho and SWR as "contrived nuisances" is a convenient way to
get rid of this problem, but it does not "wash". Rho and SWR are
fundamental properties of transmission lines that do not go away, and
a non-zero R precludes rho=1.0.

Any attempt to circumvent (bypass) these small inconveniences is
doomed to failure, regardless of the analytic geometry considerations.

Bill W0IYH


Power wave theory avoids the Smith chart, since there are no
transmission lines. Scattering matrices are used instead. Nevertheless,
rho is still an important parameter, but it does not involve distance
separation between generator and load as a parameter.

Bill W0IYH


I am not satisfied with this post. I will try to
improve it a little later.

Bill W0IYH

I get it. The challenge is to figure out what you're talking about!!

What do I win if I can do it?

;-) AC6XG

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:01:54 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
To put it ironically, the challenge I offer is deliberately incoherent
to give that math a deliberate solution that is other than the result
of simple addition or subtraction.

So how do you get the reflections in a single source system to be
incoherent?

Hi Cecil,

Two reflective interfaces with an aperiodic distance between.

The cable (or any transmission line) falls in between. So does most
instrumentation to measure power. All fall prey to this indeterminacy
(unless, of course, it is made determinant through the specification
of distance, which it is for the challenge). As I offered, this
challenge is not my own hodge-podge of boundary conditions, it was
literally drawn from a standard text many here have - hence the quote
marks that attend its publication by me. I am not surprised no one
has caught on, I also pointed out this discussion is covered in the
parts of Chapman that no one reads. Whatchagonnado?

The example of the challenge serves to illuminate (pun intended) the
logical shortfall of those here who insist that a Transmitter exhibits
no Z, or that it is unknowable (to them, in other words), or that it
reflects all power that returns to it (to bolster their equally absurd
notion that the Transmitter does not absorb that power). Chapman is
quite clear to this last piece of fluff science - specifically and to
the very wording. Engineers and scientists simply converse with the
tacit agreement that the source matches the line when going into the
discussion of SWR (and why Chapman plainly says this up front on the
page quoted earlier). This is so commonplace that literalists who
lack the background (and skim read) fall into a trap of asserting some
pretty absurd things. It follows that for these same literalists, any
evidence to the contrary is anathema, heresy, or insanity - people
start wanting to "help" you :-P

Ian grasped at the straw that the discussion simply peters out by the
steady state and wholly disregards the compelling evidence (and
further elaboration of Chapman to this, but he lacks another voice,
the same Chapman, to accept it) with a forced mismatch at both ends of
the line. It is impossible to accurately describe the power delivered
to the load without knowing all parameters, the most overlooked is
distances traversed by the power (total phase in the solution for
interference). I put the challenge up to illustrate where the heat
goes (the line); and it is well into the steady state, as I am sure no
one could argue, but could easily gust
"t'ain't so!"
At least I saved them from the prospect of strangling on their own
spit sputtering "shades of conjugation." [Another topic that barely
goes a sentence without being corrupted with a Z-match
characteristic.]

Using this example for the challenge forces out the canards that the
source is adjusting to the load (in fact, the challenge presents no
such change in the first place) and dB cares not a whit what power is
applied unless we have suddenly entered a non-linear physics. None
have gone that far as they have already fallen off the edge earlier.

Now, be advised that when I say "accurately" that this is of concern
only to those who care for accuracy. Between mild mismatches the
error is hardly catastrophic, and yet with the argument that the
Transmitter is wholly reflective, it becomes catastrophic. The lack
of catastrophe does not reject the math, it rejects the notion of the
Transmitter being wholly reflective. This discussion in their terms
merely drives a stake through their zombie theories.

I would add there has been another voice to hear in this matter. The
same literalist skim readers suffer the same shortfall of perception.
We both enjoy the zen-cartwheels so excellently exhibited by the drill
team of naysayers. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

William E. Sabin wrote:
William E. Sabin wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:


Given a line's primary characteristics, R,L,C,G,
length, or it's secondary characteristics Zo, dB, phase
angle, plus the line's terminatiing impedance it is
possible to calculate, by classical methods, all other
quantities of engineering interest - WITHOUT ANY
REFERENCE TO REFLECTION COEFFICIENT OR SWR which are
mere man-made notions supposed to assist understanding
of what goes on in the real world but, as exchanges on
this newsgroup show, are just a pair of bloody useless
nuisances.



Nevertheless, the outer circle of the Smith chart is *always*
the locus of zero positive resistance and infinite SWR, and a rho
vector cannot terminate on, or cross over, this circle when a load R0
is present, regardless of the rest of the circuit, including any
possible combination of resistances and reactances and complex Z0.

One can argue "ignore rho=1 and just jump over it". This cannot be
done in good mathematics.

Dismissing rho and SWR as "contrived nuisances" is a convenient way to
get rid of this problem, but it does not "wash". Rho and SWR are
fundamental properties of transmission lines that do not go away, and
a non-zero R precludes rho=1.0.

Any attempt to circumvent (bypass) these small inconveniences is
doomed to failure, regardless of the analytic geometry considerations.

Bill W0IYH


Power wave theory avoids the Smith chart, since there are no
transmission lines. Scattering matrices are used instead. Nevertheless,
rho is still an important parameter, but it does not involve distance
separation between generator and load as a parameter.

Bill W0IYH


I am not satisfied with this post. I will try to
improve it a little later.

Bill W0IYH