Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |