| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dr. Slick" wrote in message om... As Reg points out about the "normal" equation: "Dear Dr Slick, it's very easy. Take a real, long telephone line with Zo = 300 - j250 ohms at 1000 Hz. (then use ZL=10+j250) Magnitude of Reflection Coefficient of the load, ZL, relative to line impedance = ( ZL - Zo ) / ( ZL + Zo ) = 1.865 which exceeds unity, and has an angle of -59.9 degrees. The resulting standing waves may also be calculated. Are you happy now ?" --- Reg, G4FGQ Well, I was certainly NOT happy at this revelation, and researched it until i understood why the normal equation could incorrectly give a R.C.1 for a passive network (impossible). According to Adler, Chu, and Fano, "Electromagnetic Energy Transmission and Radiatin", John Wiley, 1960, (60-10305), when they talk about lossy lines, and say that Zo is complex in the general case, they come up with a maximum value for the reflection coefficient of (1 + SQRT(2)). Eq 5.14b. Remember, it is a lossy line; so, the reflected voltage gets smaller as you move away from the load. Somebody might want to check this out, in case I misunderstood something. BTW, the three authors were all MIT profs. Tam/WB2TT |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
| Re-Normalizing the Smith Chart (Changing the SWR into the same load) | Antenna | |||
| Mother Nature's reflection coefficient... | Antenna | |||