Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |