Richard Clark wrote:
I note, as posed before, that Ian who "might" hold a copy of Chipman
has yet to respond to my points about its contents.

I have ordered a copy. From what I have read of Chipman so far,
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. This is simply a resonance
effect. Here's a bench experiment that might shed some light
on this problem.

source--50 ohm coax--(-j500)--SWR meter--(+j500)--50 ohm coax--50 ohm load

There is a localized high reactive energy exchange through the SWR meter
between the capacitance and the coil but nowhere else on the transmission
line. That has got to have an effect on the SWR reading which is probably
not good. What, exactly, is the big deal? It is just another distributed
circuit problem.
--
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 Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:31:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
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.

Hi Cecil,

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

Reach into your bag and present us the conjugate for:
source50---50 ohm feedline---+---150 ohm feedline---load150
or the rather more terse (and simpler - bound to confound):
source=200Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200Ohm(resistive)



73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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

Richard Clark wrote:

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:

You conveniently trimmed off the rest of my statement. When the line
is lossy, it is possible to achieve a conjugate match at a point but nowhere
else. The requirement of a conjugate match for a lossy line is that the
impedance looking in either direction is the conjugate of the other direction.
That can be achieved at a single point in a lossy system, e.g. at the load.
The rule that if a conjugate match exists at one point, then a conjugate match
exists at all points, is *ONLY* true for lossless systems.

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 ...

Again, please note that you deliberately snipped the context of that
statement, not a very ethical thing to do.

is yet another in a long list of absurdities.

Well, since you changed the contextual conditions away from a possible
conjugate match, nothing in the new example cannot be explained by
achieving a conjugate match, since a conjugate match is impossible in
the new example. What do you think changing the context proves? Nothing
that you have said is true at the center of the sun. How's that for a
context change?
--
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! =-----

Cecil wrote:
Is a simple "yes" or "no"
too much to ask?

From Richard, yes.

On 07 Oct 2003 15:43:21 GMT, (W3HY) wrote:

Cecil wrote:
Is a simple "yes" or "no"
too much to ask?

From Richard, yes.


Hi Romain,

Nice to see you've been reading enough to have figured out the answer
Cecil couldn't.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC