Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: As far as I know, V/I ratios don't "cause" anything. They sometimes cause 'rho' which then becomes an end result and not the cause of anything. I disagree. Reflections are caused by real impedances not reflected ones. Have you changed your mind about this? At a two-port network with reflections, rho usually cannot be calculated from the physical impedances involved. It can certainly be done using the optical formulas for a pair of boundaries. For the two boundaries as a network, and we call rho at the first boundary r12 and rho at the second boundary r23 then rho(network) = (r12 + r23)/(1 + r12*r23) = 0. Note that if we use your value for r12, the network generates a reflection. I note the utility of negative rho in this example. But, with a transmission line at odd multiples of lambda/4, rho for the network would be at a maximum and the network equation would be (r12 - r23)/(1 - r12*r23). In such a case you'd want to use a load impedance that would provide a r23 of +.5. (x - 150)/(x + 150) = .5, so x = 450. The moral is be careful about saying that rho causes anything. Rho may be only the end result of everything. No question that rho is the end result of a ratio of impedances. It's been my view that, like the V/I ratios we were speaking about, rho is not a cause but a result. 73, Jim AC6XG |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: As far as I know, V/I ratios don't "cause" anything. They sometimes cause 'rho' which then becomes an end result and not the cause of anything. I disagree. Reflections are caused by real impedances not reflected ones. Have you changed your mind about this? Where did I say rho causes reflections? I didn't! Your statement does NOT disagree with my statement. At a two-port network with reflections, rho usually cannot be calculated from the physical impedances involved. It can certainly be done using the optical formulas for a pair of boundaries. Unfortunately, only the index of refraction of one of the boundaries is known in my statement above. The index of refraction of the second boundary is unknown, i.e. only the impedances at the two-port network are known - the load is unknown. No question that rho is the end result of a ratio of impedances. It's been my view that, like the V/I ratios we were speaking about, rho is not a cause but a result. But earlier, I thought you said rho caused a result. -- 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! =----- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote: Unfortunately, only the index of refraction of one of the boundaries is known in my statement above. The index of refraction of the second boundary is unknown, i.e. only the impedances at the two-port network are known - the load is unknown. Only if you've forgotten what you said it was. :-) If it's unknown, how could you have known what it was a half wavelength away? We are speaking about the problem you posed yesterday, right? No question that rho is the end result of a ratio of impedances. It's been my view that, like the V/I ratios we were speaking about, rho is not a cause but a result. But earlier, I thought you said rho caused a result. I'll repost what I said. If you find something in error, please advise. Thanks. "To my way of thinking, rho is entirely dependent upon the impedances, and the voltages (reflected voltages in particular) are dependent upon rho. Not the other way around." 73, Jim AC6XG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kelley wrote:
If it's unknown, how could you have known what it was a half wavelength away? We are speaking about the problem you posed yesterday, right? No, we are speaking about a statement I made unrelated to the problem I posted. For that statement, the length of the feedline is unknown and the load is unknown. What is known is the forward power and reflected power on each side of the impedance discontinuity. No question that rho is the end result of a ratio of impedances. It's been my view that, like the V/I ratios we were speaking about, rho is not a cause but a result. But earlier, I thought you said rho caused a result. "To my way of thinking, rho is entirely dependent upon the impedances, and the voltages (reflected voltages in particular) are dependent upon rho. You said "rho is not a cause but a result" but then implied that voltages are caused by (dependent upon) rho. Seems to me, rho cannot both cause a voltage and be caused by a (voltage divided by a current) which is an impedance upon which rho is dependent. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote: For that statement, the length of the feedline is unknown and the load is unknown. I was commenting on this, the subject of our conversation: "Consider the following: Source---50 ohm feedline---+---1/2WL 150 ohm---50 ohm load" As I was saying, for the two boundaries as a network, and we call rho at the first boundary r12 and rho at the second boundary r23 then rho(network) = (r12 + r23)/(1 + r12*r23) = 0. Note that if we use your value for r12, the network generates a reflection. I note the utility of negative rho in this example. Seems to me, rho cannot both cause a voltage and be caused by a (voltage divided by a current) which is an impedance upon which rho is dependent. Voltages on a transmission line do not determine reflection coefficients. Reflection coefficients are determined by characteristic impedances, not virtual ones. 73, Jim AC6XG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kelley wrote:
. . . Voltages on a transmission line do not determine reflection coefficients. Reflection coefficients are determined by characteristic impedances, not virtual ones. 73, Jim AC6XG I disagree with this. When applied to transmission lines, the (voltage) reflection coefficient is, as far as I can tell, universally defined as the ratio of reflected to forward voltage to reverse voltage at a point. So a reflection coefficient can be, and often is, calculated for every point along a line, not just at discontinuities or points of actual reflection. This can be done with nothing more than the knowledge of the values of forward and reflected voltages at the point of calculation. As it turns out, the value of the reflection coefficient at any point will be equal to (Z - Z0) / (Z + Z0), where Z is the impedance seen looking down the line toward the load at the point of calculation. I'm very leery of the use of "virtual" anything, since it often adds an unnecessary level of confusion. But if I were to calculate a reflection coefficient at some point along a continuous line, I could replace the remainder of the line and the load with a lumped load of impedance Z, and maintain exactly the same reflection coefficient and forward and reverse traveling waves in the remaining line. I wouldn't object, then, if someone would say that there was a "virtual impedance" of Z at that point when the line was intact, since all properties prior to that point are unchanged if a lumped Z of that value is substituted for the remainder. (I personally wouldn't call it "virtual" -- I'd just call it the Z at that point, since it's the ratio of V to I there.) The point is that the reflection coefficient was the same before and after the substitution of the remaining line with a real lumped Z. Before the substitution, reflection was occurring at the load. After, the reflection is occurring at the new, substituted Z load. Yet the reflection coefficient and traveling waves remain the same on the remaining line. A reflection coefficient isn't the cause of anything. It's simply a calculated quantity used for computational and conceptual convenience. Only an impedance discontinuity causes reflections, but we can calculate a reflection coefficient at any point we choose, with its value being well defined and unambiguous. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: . . . Voltages on a transmission line do not determine reflection coefficients. Reflection coefficients are determined by characteristic impedances, not virtual ones. 73, Jim AC6XG I disagree with this. When applied to transmission lines, the (voltage) reflection coefficient is, as far as I can tell, universally defined as the ratio of reflected to forward voltage to reverse voltage at a point. That rho is equivalent to that ratio of voltages is not in dispute. I might dispute that it's 'defined' by that ratio. We agree the reflection is caused by an impedance discontinuity. It is the relationship of those impedances that determines how much of an incident voltage will be reflected. From my perspective, one builds a network of impedances in order to achieve the desired voltage relationships. But one cannot build voltage relationships in order to obtain a network of impedances. Maybe it's another chicken and egg argument. Only an impedance discontinuity causes reflections, but we can calculate a reflection coefficient at any point we choose, with its value being well defined and unambiguous. Wouldn't the most well defined and unabiguous be at a point of reflection? ;-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree with this. When applied to transmission lines, the (voltage)
reflection coefficient is, as far as I can tell, universally defined as the ratio of reflected to forward voltage to reverse voltage at a point. So a reflection coefficient can be, and often is, calculated for every point along a line, not just at discontinuities or points of actual reflection. This can be done with nothing more than the knowledge of the values of forward and reflected voltages at the point of calculation. ============================= Sorry! Just to continue and further confuse the haggling, the forward voltages are unknown because one does not know, in the case of amateur systems, what is the internal voltage and internal impedance of the transmitter. It is this unknown voltage and internal impedance which the so-called SWR (Rho) meter merely ASSUMES. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: For that statement, the length of the feedline is unknown and the load is unknown. I was commenting on this, the subject of our conversation: My statement that you objected to didn't have anything to do with the following. "Consider the following: Source---50 ohm feedline---+---1/2WL 150 ohm---50 ohm load" Reflection coefficients are determined by characteristic impedances, not virtual ones. On the contrary, the reflection coefficient, rho, at '+' in the example above, is NOT determined by the characteristic impedances. Above, rho (looking at '+' from the left) is determined by taking the square root of (Pref/Pfwd) = 0. (150-50)/(150+50) is NOT rho. I was mistaken to call that quantity "rho" in my article. That quantity that I called "rho" is actually 's11' and I need to update my article. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Reflection coefficients are determined by characteristic impedances, not virtual ones. On the contrary, the reflection coefficient, rho, at '+' in the example above, is NOT determined by the characteristic impedances. I just showed you how characteristic impedances are used to calculate the reflection coefficient at '+'. But you can wish it into the cornfield if you like, Anthony. :-) (150-50)/(150+50) is NOT rho. Is it the reflection coefficient for a 50 ohm to 150 ohm impedance discontinuity? I was mistaken to call that quantity "rho" in my article. That quantity that I called "rho" is actually 's11' and I need to update my article. Since S-parameters were never even mentioned in your article, updating it seems an understatement. 73, Jim AC6XG |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|