Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Lewallen wrote:
My, it sure didn't take long to get the discussion diverted from the voltages, currents, and powers in the analysis. I'm sorry to say I expected that. Please calm down, Roy. Disagreeing with you is not a diversion. You made a simple error. When you introduced the 'x' term, the distance away from the load, you introduced a 2-port analysis. It is a well known fact that there are four power terms involved in a 2-port analysis as explained in another posting. Was I unclear about what I did calculate? Yes, you were, but it was inadvertent. I don't know, and don't really care, where you're trying to go with your S parameter analysis. But when you're all done, please translate all that wonderful stuff to voltages, currents, and powers, using a finite length transmission line, and present your analysis. I'm just showing you what small error you made when you assumed that only one of the four power terms was the forward power. There are four power terms. They divide up and add to obtain the forward power and reflected power. You neglected to do that. Are you having difficulty understanding what I've done simply with voltages, currents, and powers? Nope, I recognize the tiny error you made and am trying to explain it to you. You didn't include all the forward voltages in your forward voltage. There are four voltage terms, two forward and two reflected. You left out half the terms and got the wrong forward or reflected voltage or both. The mistake is in assuming that rho = s11. It doesn't in this case. So, you mean that the term containing the product of two sine functions is part of Pfwd when the angles are such that the sine functions return a positive value, and part of Pref when they return a negative value? No, after further thought, I think you should NOT have combined those two terms. Four terms is what exists in the analysis so just leave it at four terms. All the terms with a plus sign combine and all the terms with a minus sign combine. Please publish the four term power equation before you used a trig identity to combine the terms. Two of those terms are forward power and two of those terms are reflected power. No, I did not derive an s parameter analysis. I derived voltages, currents, and powers. You obviously did a something-parameter analysis (maybe a z-parameter analysis?). Whatever you did results in four power terms, not two plus a third. When you introduced 'x' you introduced an analysis that produces a reflected wave on each side of 'x' and a forward wave on each side of 'x'. That's four waves. You went too far when you combined two of those waves into one especially since one is a forward wave and one is a reflected wave. -- 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! =----- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Calculus not needed (was: Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit) | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit | Antenna | |||
Mother Nature's reflection coefficient... | Antenna |