Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If anyone is interested in really getting to the bottom of this endless
jousting, turn to page 136 of "Theory and Problems of Transmission Lines" by Robert A. Chipman. This is a Schaum's Outline book - mine is dated 1968. Many professionals acknowledge that this is one of the most succinct and revealing accounts of t-line theory to be found. Mathematical enough to be rigorous but readable and highly useful. Starting in Section 7.6, Chipman derives the full set of equations for lines with complex characteristic impedance. I will make no effort here to repeat the development with ASCII non-equation symbols, but the bottom line is that in the general case, Zo is indeed a complex number which can be highly frequency-dependent. Under the condition of certain combinations of physical parameters of the line, Zo does indeed become actually real - the so-called Heaviside Line where R/L=G/C where the symbols have the usual meanings - and independent of frequency. This is the only case wherein a lossy line can have a real Zo. Finally, he clearly shows how terminating an actual physical line appropriately can result in a reflection coefficient as large as 2.41. This revelation DOES NOT imply that the reflected wave would bear more power than the incident wave. For a line to display this behavior, it must first of all have a high attenuation per wavelength. Due to this high attenuation, the power in the reflected wave is high for only a short distance from the termination. A couple of surprising consequences of this: 1. in order to terminate a line with complex Zo such that rho is greater than 1, the reactance of the load must be equal and opposite to the reactive term of Zo. In other words, the line and the load form a resonant circuit separated from "the rest of the system" by the very lossy line. 2. calculation of the power at any point on a line with real Zo, lossy or not, is simply Pf - Pr. But for a complex Zo, this is no longer true and a much more complex set of equations - given by Chipman - must be used. See his equations 7.34 and 7.35. Finally, it should be understood that these effects are found almost entirely on low-frequency transmission lines. Dealing with complex Zo is routine with audio/telephone cable circuits and the like. At HF, the reactive component of Zo for most common lines is so small as to be safely and conveniently neglected. For example, RG-213 at 14 MHz has a Zo of 50-j0.315 ohms. The same line at 1000 Hz has a Zo of 50-j35.733 ohms. (Values taken from the TLDetails program) When terminated in 50+j0 ohms, the SWR on the line is 2.012. When terminated in 50-j35.733 ohms, the SWR is 1:1 as would be expected. But when terminated in 50+j35.733 ohms, the SWR is a whopping 5.985. RG-213 is nowhere near lossy enough to display the resonant-load effects Chipman discusses, but these data give some idea of the perhaps unexpected consequences of using even a common line like RG-213 at a low frequency. Taken to 100 Hz, we find Zo = 50 - j 113.969 ohms and when terminated in 50 + j 112.969, rho is determined to be 2.25839. Note that the termination is a passive circuit in all these examples. I urge anyone seriously interested in understanding transmission line theory to include Chipman on their bookshelf. Despite its assumed low station as a Schaum's Outline book, it provides a source of information and understanding seldom matched by any text. 73/72, George Amateur Radio W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13QE "In the 57th year and it just keeps getting better!" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Slick" Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:18 AM Subject: Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit Hello, Actually, my first posting: Reflection Coefficient =(Zload-Zo)/(Zload+Zo) was right all along, if Zo is always purely real. No argument there. However, from Les Besser's Applied RF Techniques: "For passive circuits, 0=[rho]=1, And strictly speaking: Reflection Coefficient =(Zload-Zo*)/(Zload+Zo) Where * indicates conjugate. But MOST of the literature assumes that Zo is real, therefore Zo*=Zo." This is why most of you know the "normal" equation. And then i looked at the trusty ARRL handbook, 1993, page 16-2, and lo and behold, the reflection coefficient equation doesn't have a term for line reactance, so both this book and Pozar have indeed assumed that the Zo will be purely real. Here's a website that describes the general conjugate equation: http://www.zzmatch.com/lcn.html Additionally, the Kurokawa paper ("Power Waves and the Scattering Matrix") describes the voltage reflection coefficient as the same conjugate formula, but he rather foolishly calls it a "power wave R. C.", which when the magnitude is squared, becomes the power R. C. Email me for the paper. 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). If you try the calculations again with the conjugate formula, you will see that you can never have a [rho] (magnitude of R.C.) greater than 1 for a passive network. You need to use the conjugate formula if Zo is complex and not purely real. How could you get more power reflected than what you put into a passive network(do you believe in conservation of energy, or do you think you can make energy out of nothing)? If you guys can tell us, we could fix our power problems in CA! Thanks to Reg for NOT trusting my post, and this is a subtle detail that is good to know. Slick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:27:40 GMT, "George, W5YR"
wrote: ... "Theory and Problems of Transmission Lines" by Robert A. Chipman. This is a Schaum's Outline book - mine is dated 1968. Many professionals acknowledge that this is one of the most succinct and revealing accounts of t-line theory to be found. Mathematical enough to be rigorous but readable and highly useful. Hi George, I have notice you recommended this author several times, and yet you have casually dismissed his rather straightforward coverage relating to the characteristic Z of a Transmitter: There is no need to know, since its value, whatever it might be, plays no role in the design and implementation of the external portion of the system driven by the transmitter. How do you reconcile this with his coverage entitled "9.10. Return loss, reflection loss, and transmission loss." You may wish to observe the clearly marked figure 9-26 and specifically the paragraph that follows (or the entire section for that matter) that quite clearly reveals what is everywhere else implied: that ALL SWR discussion presumes a Zc matched source. You may observe that Chapman thus refutes your statement above. Further, Chapman goes to some length to describe the Smith Chart's appended line evaluation scales at the bottom to this very matter. To substantiate this from other sources I have offered a very simple example that shows this importance that to date has defied "first principle" analysis (not first principles however, merely the claim of its being practiced analytically in this regard). I will offer it again, lest you missed it. The scenario begins: "A 50-Ohm line is terminated with a load of 200+j0 ohms. The normal attenuation of the line is 2.00 decibels. What is the loss of the line?" Having stated no more, the implication is that the source is matched to the line (source Z = 50+j0 Ohms). This is a half step towards the full blown implementation such that those who are comfortable to this point (and is in fact common experience) will observe their answer and this answer a "A = 1.27 + 2.00 = 3.27dB" "This is the dissipation or heat loss...." we then proceed: "...the generator impedance is 100+0j ohms, and the line is 5.35 wavelengths long." Beware, this stumper has so challenged the elite that I have found it dismissed through obvious embarrassment of either lacking the means to compute it, or the ability to simply set it up and measure it. It takes two resistors and a hank of transmission line, or what has been described by one correspondent as: There is no institutionalized ignorance, just a lot of skepticism regarding the reliability of the analysis methods and the measurement methods. Clearly a low regard for many correspondent's abilities here, and hardly a prejudice original to me. Imagine the incapacity of so many to measure relative power loss - a CFA salesman's dream population. Actually it is quite obvious several recognize that follow-through would dismantle some cherished fantasies. Chapman clearly knocks the underpinnings from beneath them without any further effort on my part. But then, as you offer, they would merely dismiss it by confirming another prejudice: its assumed low station as a Schaum's Outline book I would point out to all, that Chapman's material dovetails with what would have been then current research and teachings of the National Bureau of Standards. Prejudice has "refuted" those findings too. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
"...the generator impedance is 100+0j ohms, and the line is 5.35 wavelengths long." What does the generator impedance have to do with line losses? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:58:09 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: "...the generator impedance is 100+0j ohms, and the line is 5.35 wavelengths long." What does the generator impedance have to do with line losses? Hi Cecil, From Chapman (you following this George?) page 28: "It is reasonable to ask at this point how, for the circuit of Fig. 3-1(b), page 18, on which the above analysis is based, there can be voltage and current waves traveling in both directions on the transmission line when there is only a single signal source. The answer lies in the phenomenon of reflection, which is very familiar in the case of light waves, sound waves, and water waves. Whenever traveling waves of any of these kinds meet an obstacle, i.e. encounter a discontinuous change from the medium in which they have been traveling, they are partially or totally reflected." ... "The reflected voltage and current waves will travel back along the line to the point z=0, and in general will be partially re-reflected there, depending on the boundary conditions established by the source impedance Zs. The detailed analysis of the resulting infinite series of multiple reflections is given in Chapter 8." The Challenge that I have offered more than several here embody such topics and evidence the exact relations portrayed by Chapman (and others already cited, and more not). The Challenge, of course, dashes many dearly held prejudices of the Transmitter "not" having a characteristic source Z of 50 Ohms. Chapman also clearly reveals that this characteristic Z is of importance - only to those interested in accuracy. Those hopes having been dashed is much evidenced by the paucity of comment here; and displayed elsewhere where babble is most abundant in response to lesser dialog (for the sake of enlightening lurkers no less). Clearly those correspondents hold to the adage to choose fights you can win. I would add so do I! The quality of battle is measured in the stature of the corpses littering the field. :-) So, Cecil (George, Peter, et alii), do you have an answer? Care to take a measure at the bench? As Chapman offers, "just like optics." Shirley a man of your erudition can cope with the physical proof of your statements. ;-) The only thing you and others stand to lose is not being able to replicate decades old work. Two resistors and a hank of line is a monumental challenge. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
So, Cecil (George, Peter, et alii), do you have an answer? Years ago, I had a discussion with Jeff, WA6AHL, here on this newsgroup. I suggested that the impedance looking back into the source might be Vsource/Isource, i.e. the transformed dynamic load line. However, I have never taken a strong stand on source impedance. If reflections are blocked from being incident upon the source, as they are in most Z0-matched systems, the source impedance doesn't matter since there exists nothing to reflect from the source impedance. My basic approach is to achieve a Z0-match and therefore forget about source impedance. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:18:44 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: So, Cecil (George, Peter, et alii), do you have an answer? Years ago, I had a discussion with Jeff, WA6AHL, here on this newsgroup. I suggested that the impedance looking back into the source might be Vsource/Isource, i.e. the transformed dynamic load line. However, I have never taken a strong stand on source impedance. If reflections are blocked from being incident upon the source, as they are in most Z0-matched systems, the source impedance doesn't matter since there exists nothing to reflect from the source impedance. My basic approach is to achieve a Z0-match and therefore forget about source impedance. Hi Cecil, That's all fine and well. It exhibits a rather standard behavior and confirms conventional expectations. I take by this response that you have no interest in the confirmation of interference in both Optical and RF metaphors being visited at the bench. That is fine too. It is a rather tough example to replicate - except when stumbled upon, then we hear cries for exorcism being needed (my cue). My missives simply offer touchstones of clarity in contrast to the murky sea of un-fettered statements. We are presented with fantastic notions that the characteristic source Z of a transmitter is unknowable, and this statement is usually closely allied to the notion that this same "unknowable" Z is actually responsible for reflecting all power arriving at the antenna terminal. Few of those who utter these witless jokes have any response to the straight line "So what is this Z that does all that reflecting?" In their chagrin, they fail even to repeat "it is unknowable...." Absolutely none can venture a guess that it is either: "much less than 50 Ohms," or it is "much more than 50 Ohms." This would be two obvious rejoinders and yet neither is uttered. Such is faith. The universal silence condemns their specious claims absolutely. These absurd notions deserve a hearty laugh, because it invalidates the need for a tuner which is purposely inserted between the source and load to serve that very purpose (and which you describe as your typical habit which is a nearly universal application). But, again, this discussion is generally reserved only for those interested in accuracy. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
But, again, this discussion is generally reserved only for those interested in accuracy. :-) Like I say, my solution is to block any reflections from being incident upon the source. But I have a question. Since we are discussing coherent sine waves, it seems to me that any reflection from the source impedance will become indistinguishable from the generated wave. In fact, the present convention of generated power equals forward power minus reflected power is designed to overcome that very problem. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:18:44 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: So, Cecil (George, Peter, et alii), do you have an answer? Years ago, I had a discussion with Jeff, WA6AHL, here on this newsgroup. I suggested that the impedance looking back into the source might be Vsource/Isource, i.e. the transformed dynamic load line. However, I have never taken a strong stand on source impedance. If reflections are blocked from being incident upon the source, as they are in most Z0-matched systems, the source impedance doesn't matter since there exists nothing to reflect from the source impedance. My basic approach is to achieve a Z0-match and therefore forget about source impedance. Hi Cecil, That's all fine and well. It exhibits a rather standard behavior and confirms conventional expectations. I take by this response that you have no interest in the confirmation of interference in both Optical and RF metaphors being visited at the bench. That is fine too. It is a rather tough example to replicate - except when stumbled upon, then we hear cries for exorcism being needed (my cue). My missives simply offer touchstones of clarity in contrast to the murky sea of un-fettered statements. We are presented with fantastic notions that the characteristic source Z of a transmitter is unknowable, and this statement is usually closely allied to the notion that this same "unknowable" Z is actually responsible for reflecting all power arriving at the antenna terminal. Few of those who utter these witless jokes have any response to the straight line "So what is this Z that does all that reflecting?" In their chagrin, they fail even to repeat "it is unknowable...." Absolutely none can venture a guess that it is either: "much less than 50 Ohms," or it is "much more than 50 Ohms." This would be two obvious rejoinders and yet neither is uttered. Such is faith. The universal silence condemns their specious claims absolutely. These absurd notions deserve a hearty laugh, because it invalidates the need for a tuner which is purposely inserted between the source and load to serve that very purpose (and which you describe as your typical habit which is a nearly universal application). But, again, this discussion is generally reserved only for those interested in accuracy. :-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:18:44 -0500, W5DXP
wrote: My basic approach is to achieve a Z0-match and therefore forget about source impedance. Hi Cecil, This is a cavalier attitude if you can afford it. Otherwise, those who so desperately hammer out the last 0.1 dB antenna gain are going to fall to their knees in wrack when they discover that their rig's characteristic Z of, say, 70 Ohms meeting the discontinuity of their low pass filter's 50 Ohms turns that effort into heat behind the antenna jack. I have long since stopped being surprised by those who spin on like whirling dervishes over trivial matters in the face of 10 fold losses in front of them. This, of course, is even more trivial when they gush on about their premium equipment that behind the knobs "efficiently" transforms 20 - 25 Amperes of DC current into 100 Watts RF. Now, that puts perspective to the topic: smoke and reflection coefficient. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
W5DXP wrote: My basic approach is to achieve a Z0-match and therefore forget about source impedance. This is a cavalier attitude if you can afford it. It's all part of my "Work Smarter, Not Harder" nature. The elimination of reflected energy incident upon the source is extremely rewarding in multiple ways. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
Reply |
|
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 |