LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10   Report Post  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:03 PM
David Robbins
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dr. Slick" wrote in message
om...
"David Robbins" wrote in message

...


I believe this line (3) is only true if Zo is purely real.

If Zo is complex, i don't think you can apply
this.

I swore that I wouldn't get into this one, but enough's enough.

Equation (1) is an application of Kirchoff's voltage law.
Equation (2) is an application of Kirchoff's current law.
Equation (3) results from (2) if you apply Ohm's law three times, to

the
three terms in Equation (2).

Which of these three principles (Kirchoff's voltage law, Kirchoff's
current law, or Ohm's law) is the one you don't believe? Or do you
disbelieve more than one of the three?

now, now, take it easy on him... he didn't say he didn't believe kcl or

kvl
or ohm's law... he just doesn't understand that they still do apply to
phasor notation used in sinusoidal steady state analysis. an easy
misunderstanding.



Gee, thanks David. I was wrong! This was a little review for me!
Hehe... owww..

But it still doesn't answer my question.

I don't think Kurokawa and Besser and the ARRL just pulled it
out of thin air.

And how do you explain the rho 1 for a passive network?
Shouldn't be possible. And neither should a negative SWR.

I'm not sure what is wrong with your derivation, but there
must be something that they are missing to not have the conjugate
in the numerator. Or there is a particular step that you cannot do
with complex impedances.

Again, the normal equation is only for purely real Zo, or
when Zo*=Zo. If Zo is complex, you have to use the conjugate
equation.

Could you email a scan of some of the pages? Not that it
would absolutely help me too much, but perhaps you are missing
something.


Slick

sorry, no scanner here.

how do you get rho1? please give me the Zo and Zl to try out, i have been
playing for a while with the basic equations and haven't found a case where
either formulat gives rho1.

and of course if |rho|=1 then swr can never be negative.





 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calculus not needed (was: Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit) David or Jo Anne Ryeburn Antenna 17 December 13th 03 10:48 AM
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) Dr. Slick Antenna 199 September 12th 03 10:06 PM
Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit Dr. Slick Antenna 126 September 10th 03 04:26 PM
Mother Nature's reflection coefficient... Peter O. Brackett Antenna 8 August 28th 03 06:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017