Reg, can you furnish a a mathematical expression that includes source
resistance
as a required parameter for determining SWR?

--------------------------------------------

No Walt. Can you ? Why do you ask ?

Reg.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match at
one point on the transmission line when the reactance looking
in either direction is at a maximum.

I don't know which is funnier: that you have a
one-solution-answers-every-question; or that you have so many of them.

It's not my solution, Richard, it's Chipman's solution. "These large
reflection coefficients are an example of the phenomenon of 'resonant
rise of voltage' in series resonant circuits."
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)

Are you saying that the SWR will vary up and down the line
when the feedline is lossless? Is the above example in Chipman?
--
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! =-----

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:50:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)

Are you saying that the SWR will vary up and down the line
when the feedline is lossless?

Cecil, you can be so thick. Do you inhabit the center of the
universe? We've waded through this long ago.

Is the above example in Chipman?

No. He does have a snippet of math that will provide the same answer
found for similar (differing only by magnitude of R's) examples by
other authors. These issues are new only to folks here.

Hi Cecil,

It seems that whenever I challenge you to one of your comments such
as:
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
you fly from it to prove or question some remote issue.

Instead of going over old material that you abandoned (and will only
abandon again), why not simply offer the group the conjugate of:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)
which was my query this time (or are you abandoning that too?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:

Reg, that can't possibly be you. Someone has hijacked your e-mail.

===========================

Ian, it IS me!

Oh yes? Whoever he is, he *would* say that, wouldn't he?

(Catching-up after a hectic long weekend...)

--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Reg, can you furnish a a mathematical expression that
includes source resistance as a required parameter for
determining SWR?

--------------------------------------------

No Walt. Can you ? Why do you ask ?

Reg.

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Are you saying that the SWR will vary up and down the line
when the feedline is lossless?

Cecil, you can be so thick. Do you inhabit the center of the
universe? We've waded through this long ago.

You cloud the issue because you refuse to answer simple
questions. I don't remember what your answer was and I can't
find your previous answer on Google. Is a simple "yes" or "no"
too much to ask?

Instead of going over old material that you abandoned (and will only
abandon again), why not simply offer the group the conjugate of:

source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)

which was my query this time (or are you abandoning that too?).

If the lossless 50 ohm feedline is a multiple of 1/2WL long, the
system is conjugately matched. Chipman says the extra power term
only exists when the reactance of the feedline is opposite in
sign to the reactance of the load but your load is purely resistive.
So I don't know what you are trying to say. Therefore, I don't know
whether to agree with you or not.
--
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! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Instead of going over old material that you abandoned (and will only
abandon again), why not simply offer the group the conjugate of:

source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)

which was my query this time (or are you abandoning that too?).

So I don't know what you are trying to say. Therefore, I don't know
whether to agree with you or not.

Hi Cecil,

You don't have to know as it is not a matter of agreeing, it is a
matter of your statement offering:
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
and I see nothing about that in a halfwave line that instead achieves
a Zo match, not a conjugate. A conjugate has very specific properties
and you cannot provide an expression that offers the conjugate for the
situation:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)
Hence, the generality you impart to Chipman, due to your limitations,
reveals it is neither a generality nor is it necessarily even a
derivation of Chipman. Your two pages of copy are 230-odd pages shy
of understanding.

Let's just juggle the notion of Zo matching out with a slight boundary
change:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=600 Ohm(resistive)
What is the expression you offer to support your statement that yields
the conjugate? Barring an answer, it follows your statement that
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
is yet another in a long list of absurdities.

Perhaps you should await Chipman's arrival (Waiting for Godot?) before
continuing on. However, given the consequences of that arrival for
others in this group, that could mean total abstinence in discussion
as so many seem to read him in the closet and find themselves locked
in a small, dark room.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 19:49:19 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

SWR meters are designed to operate and provide indications of SWR, Rho,
Fwd
Power, Refl.Power, on the ASSUMPTION that the internal impedance of the
transmitter is 50 ohms.

Reg, G4FGQ

Well, Reg, the reason I asked for an expression that includes the source
resistance in measuring SWR is that you said above that the internal impedance
of the transmitter is ASSUMED to be 50 ohms. This implies that the SWR is
dependent on the internal impedance of the source, does it not ?

AsI have understood Richard C., he also asserts that SWR is dependent the
internal impedance of the source.

This concept is foreign to me, so if I'm wrong I'd like to have some proof that
the source impedance can have any influence on SWR.

Walt

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:40:27 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:


This concept is foreign to me, so if I'm wrong I'd like to have some proof that
the source impedance can have any influence on SWR.

Walt

Hi Walt,

I have not seen any correspondence from you. However, as to proof,
that has been tendered to you, you simply lack the facilities to test
it at this time. That much has already been established and further
elaboration is unnecessary. Debate can continue without resolution, a
simple hour's work at the bench can put the cap to it.

My data stands un-refuted (barring the usual cackle of nay-saying
sneer review), and even more, without test at ANY other bench. I can
only conclude that:
1.) My data is bullet-proof;
2.) others lack the ability to perform the task;
3.) 1&2 above, but narcissistic debate is the real focus of critics.

The triumph of the nay-sayers is in my admission that I know that I am
in error. They undoubtedly grasp that statement as the chalice of
their noble musings leaving them undisturbed to step up to the bench.
It also is revealed in their piteous cries of the calamity of Amateur
Radio's future that awaits us. This last comes as no surprise to the
rising tide in the kulture of institutionalized ignorance where the
supreme technical achievement is enacted by pushing a credit card
across the display case.

I am bound to be in error through my own admission, but my admission
comes with a bounds of accuracy. To others here, my error is absolute
and demonstration to attest that is unnecessary. This unsullied
nobility is then undercut by the jejune debate they indulge in over
issues of a philosophical nature - actually a mystical assignation
with metaphysics.

I suppose I frustrate many because I am not afraid to be wrong. The
frustration is often railed in terms of my style (their being
outgunned on two fronts) and compounded by their inertia for doing
simple things well (the loss of yet another, third front). You guys
need more threads devoted to the definition of weight so you can
devastate the farmer's mud-logic. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC