No, no, Cecil. *You* need to include all the separate voltages and
currents, to show us. I'm glad that you find the s-parameter analysis to
be more trouble free. So do it, and when you're done, substitute back in
for transmission line characteristic impedance, length, and loss; and
load impedance, then show us the resulting voltages, currents, and
powers. Should be easy, no?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

The "problem" lies simply in calculating average "forward power" and
"reverse power" separately, throwing away all time related
information, then expecting them to add or subtract to get the total.


The s-parameter analysis doesn't have a problem doing that, Roy.
Your analysis won't either when you include all the appropriate
terms.

Roy Lewallen wrote:

No, no, Cecil. *You* need to include all the separate voltages and
currents, to show us.

Do you think I am capable of inventing something so complex just to
pull your leg, Roy? What I am saying is grounded in physics. You
simply made a simple mistake in assuming one term was forward voltage
when actually, there are two terms when added together, yield the
forward voltage. You didn't realize that you were doing a 2-port
analysis.
--
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! =-----

Cecil:

[snip]
forward voltage. You didn't realize that you were doing a 2-port
analysis.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
[snip]

I was just castigated by Roy and Dave Robbins on another thread for making
postings about
"ports", apparently we are not allowed to discuss "ports" when we are
discussing transmission
lines since ports have only to do with networks and transmission lines have
no ports!!!

;-)

--
Peter K1PO [A guy who believes that transmission lines have two ports.]
Indialantic By-the-Sea, Fl

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
I was just castigated by Roy and Dave Robbins on another thread for making
postings about
"ports", apparently we are not allowed to discuss "ports" when we are
discussing transmission
lines since ports have only to do with networks and transmission lines have
no ports!!!

Darn Peter, I was hoping you could help me explain to Roy what is wrong with
his analysis - that he is using a 2-port analysis and getting four power terms
as a result, two of which have to be added to get forward power and the other
two of which have to be added to get reflected power.
--
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! =-----

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Peter O. Brackett wrote:
I was just castigated by Roy and Dave Robbins on another thread for
making
postings about
"ports", apparently we are not allowed to discuss "ports" when we are
discussing transmission
lines since ports have only to do with networks and transmission lines
have
no ports!!!

Darn Peter, I was hoping you could help me explain to Roy what is wrong
with
his analysis - that he is using a 2-port analysis and getting four power
terms
as a result, two of which have to be added to get forward power and the
other
two of which have to be added to get reflected power.

i like ports, i use them all the time in network analysis, they are an
important part of the tcp/ip protocol!. for transmission lines all you
really need is voltage OR current waves, everything else falls out from
those. computing power and trying to reflect power can only lead to
confusion, because unless you use the complete formula for complex powers
you are losing important information.... and don't even start on computing
rms or other average powers, then you have totally lost the physical
significance of the waves.