Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 18th 03, 08:16 AM
pez
 
Posts: n/a
Default Complex Z0 Farewell

Permit me please to conclude
my point of view on the Complex Z0 subject
with three
_claims_:

1.
The well known relation

|rho| = 1 + Sqrt[2]

has been sharpened
to be exactly

|rho| = Sqrt[(1+Sin|to|)/(1-Sin|to|)]

where 'to' is the 'angle' of rho.
This is a
_claim_
that no one else has verified it.

2.
Also,
the well known relation

|Xo|/Ro = 1

is sharpened too, to be exactly

|Xo|/Ro = min{ a/b, b/a }.

This is as well a
_claim_
no one else has verified it yet.

3.
The well known non-violation of the
Principle of Conservation of Energy
at any point of a line,
has been found to be surely valid
only at the terminal load.
There is no proof yet of its validation
at any other point.
Once again this is a
_claim_
no one else has verified it.

The impressive worm with which
these facts
have been generally welcomed
by the members of the current Newsgroup
-devoted to the Amateur Truth I presume-
it seems that is a characteristic
of the contemporary Amateur Ethics.

In any case,
I would delightedly look forward
for any contribution
to these three matters.

But until then

-Farewell my Darling, Complex Z0!

Sincerely,

pez
SV7BAX
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 18th 03, 08:55 AM
pez
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The a, b are the propagation constants
and of course,
'to' is not the 'angle' of the
Reflection Coefficient rho
but that of
Z0 = Ro +j Xo.

It has rather to do with
the emotional charge of the moments...

Sincerely,

pez
SV7BAX

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 18th 03, 08:51 PM
David or Jo Anne Ryeburn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In articles and ,
"pez" wrote:

1.
The well known relation

|rho| = 1 + Sqrt[2]

has been sharpened
to be exactly

|rho| = Sqrt[(1+Sin|to|)/(1-Sin|to|)]

where 'to' is the 'angle' of rho.



'to' is not the 'angle' of the
Reflection Coefficient rho
but that of
Z0 = Ro +j Xo.

It has rather to do with
the emotional charge of the moments...

Sincerely,

pez
SV7BAX


In article
the argument I gave showed that if you look at an ellipse with foci at
Z_0 and at - Z_0 then among the points Z_L on any such ellipse that are
in the fourth and first quadrants, the one for which the magnitude of
the reflection coefficient (non-conjugate definition, of course) is
maximized is the one on the imaginary axis near - Z_0 and far from Z_0,
i.e. having opposite reactance to that of Z_0. If you then use geometry,
or algebra, or even calculus if you feel compelled to use it, to see
which such point on the imaginary axis is best (i.e., which of the
ellipses of various eccentricities has the best "best" point) you will
find that the maximum occurs when the magnitude of Z_L is the same as
that of Z_0. In symbols, you will want to have
Z_L = +/- j sqrt ((R_0)^2 + (X_0)^2), where Z_0 = R_0 + j X_0 and the
sign to be chosen (+/-) is the opposite to that of X_0. When you use
this value of Z_L you will indeed get a reflection coefficient
magnitude of sqrt [(1 + sin |t_0|)/(1 - sin |t_o|)], thereby
confirming your formula
|rho| = sqrt [(1 + sin |t_o|)/(1 - sin |t_o|)].

This is a
_claim_
that no one else has verified it.


Now some one has. Details left for the reader -- you can think of what I
wrote above as a "Heathkit proof" ;-)! I used to enjoy giving "Heathkit
proofs" for my students to build; as they became more proficient, the
construction manuals offered became sketchier and sketchier. Eventually
the students got to the point where they could design and build their own
rigs (er, proofs) and the days of "Heathkit proofs" were over for them.

2.
Also,
the well known relation

|Xo|/Ro = 1

is sharpened too, to be exactly

|Xo|/Ro = min{ a/b, b/a }.

This is as well a
_claim_
no one else has verified it yet.


I'll see if I can sketch a nice demonstration of this second result,
preferably one that does *not* involve calculus ;-)!

David, ex-W8EZE, retired math professor, and not quite finished with either
of these things

--
David or Jo Anne Ryeburn

To send e-mail, remove the letter "z" from this address.
Reply
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
Complex Z0 Clearness pez Antenna 3 September 18th 03 10:28 PM
What is Pfwd and Pref with Complex Zo? Dr. Slick Antenna 13 September 17th 03 09:58 PM
Complex line Z0: A numerical example Roy Lewallen Antenna 11 September 13th 03 01:04 AM
Complex Z0 - Power : A Proof pez Antenna 4 September 12th 03 03:41 PM
Complex Z0 [Corrected] pez Antenna 41 September 11th 03 05:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017