On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:18:04 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.
I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.
Ah! you've seen the light then.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:16:39 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Is a zero length of 50 ohm coax sufficient
For angels to hold a convention in?

You hit a oil patch on that turn in the road, your logic is in the
ditch now.

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. com...
Tam/WB2TT wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
The actual SWR on a lossless line doesn't change. Yet, in another
posting, I showed that moving the Bird 1/4WL closer to the load
caused a reported SWR change by the Bird from 1:1 to 2.25:1. How
could both results possibly be right?

The Bird does not know squat about transmission lines, foreward, or
reflected. It only cares about impedance. If you connect a 50 Ohm load
to it through 1/4 wave of 75 Ohm coax, the impedance the Bird sees will
be transformed to 112.5 Ohms; hence the 2.25 SWR. (Actually, a 2.25:1
impedance ratio)

Yes, that's exactly what I said in the other posting. But some
people seem to believe that inserting a Bird into a transmission
line with a Z0 other than 50 ohms magically changes it to a 50
ohm environment. The 40mm of transmission line inside the Bird
is supposed to accomplish that miracle.

yep, that is true, and that is what the experiment shows. the 50 ohm
load, even though it is caused by a 75 ohm line, is far enough away from
the sensor that it sees it as 50 ohms. so the 'miracle' length is
obviously less than 40mm.

Specifically, the "miracle length"is 0. My SWCad simulation assumes 0 length
interconnects, 0 spurious capacity, and 0 spurious inductance. Also, I might
add, near infinite bandwidth. In fact, it should work at DC. Haven't tried
that, but it works the same at 100 Hz as 100 MHz.. It gives generally
accepted answers.

Tam

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:51:02 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:


Sorry, I am just quoting Owen's results.

There is nothing in his entire scope of postings that presents:

There was 4.1667 watts of reflected energy flowing back through the Bird.

Which is absurd.

The SWR on the 75 ohm line is 1.5:1. If 100 watts is delivered to
the load, there's 4.1667 watts of energy reflected from the load
and flowing back through the Bird. The Bird doesn't see it because
the Bird is calibrated for the wrong Z0.

Owen has demonstrated quite clearly that your assertion

It takes a certain length of feedline to establish a Z0 environment

is blarney from one end of your feedline to the other.

Really? They why bother with characteristic impedance at all?
If Z0 doesn't establish a Z0 environment, then all transmission
lines are just alike and transmission theory is hogwash.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

I can't figure out which side you are on. There is no Z0 environment set up;
the Bridge is balanced for a chosen Z0, actually R0.

Tam/WB2TT

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.

Ah! you've seen the light then.

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:26:56 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
How amusing.

This dovetails with your own proof (sic) - HERE - how the Bird has
failed to sense that very lack of cancellation looking into a
quarterwave section that offers a perfect match to the Bird. As I
said, you lost your logic on the first bump in the road you took.

This is an amusing irony of where you have found power where you have
always posited there is none, and where you have rejected there is
power when it has been shown to exist. Each example exposes your lack
of experience in the scale of the error and its relation to the
equipment measuring it.

And both times it has come at the topic for which you have absolutely
no experience with at the bench. Your arguments are exhibits of the
failure of third hand-off quotes bolstered by Xeroxed citations. They
all come out of books that are suitable catechisms for puttering
students and doddering intellectuals, and they fail in the face of
obvious results demonstrated at the bench.

Of course, this is advanced topics I am speaking of when we get to the
reality of actual results, and no doubt it shakes your Sunday school
sophistication of faith in a comic book level of practice.

I will now leave you with your sputtering attempt to recover. ;-)

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
m...
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Another one of your rounding errors like where light 10 times brighter
than the sun is black.

I see you understand this subject just as well as you
understood that one.

Ah! you've seen the light then.

Please tell me that you have figured out how the irradiance
in the 1/4WL thin-film can be greater than the incident
irradiance when reflections are completely canceled.
--

ah, back to something only cecil would care about... guess the v/i
discussion is over now.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:44:06 -0000, "Dave" wrote:

guess the v/i discussion is over now.

Hi Dave,

It may have been tailored in that vernacular, but it was actually
never about that at all. As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

The humor here is that supposedly the thin-film offers "total"
cancellation for the same reason that the quarter wave from this bench
test does not. :-)

In fact, neither exhibit "total" cancellation, but to maintain the
charade one or the other does, then that charade must fail, and these
recent arguments have just revealed that fracture.

Some time ago I offered results from the bench in just how much light
was in fact returned from a thin-film section, and this was rejected
as impossible - hence the allusion to brighter than the sun light
being rendered as black to satisfy this illusion of "totality" in
cancellation. This reflected light was buried in the digits, but
still and all, far brighter than the sun (such is the vast range of
accommodation that the eye offers as a measuring device).

On the flip side, any leakage (reflection back) from a quarterwave
section suffers identical issues. Those reflections are buried in the
digits too. This is orders of magnitude different from the speculated
4.17 watts which is a farrago. Does a Bird have the same scope of
resolution as the eye? Hardly. The inherent error of the meter at
±5% vastly overwhelms such products (the eye does not suffer such
error for other reasons - imagine what a driver's eye-check test would
be like if it did).

So, to advance this itinerant concept of Owen's demonstration not
busting the myth of the requirement for line sections, this troll has
diverged from the topic to haul out a spurious argument that is in
direct conflict with other discussions of the same topic, from the
same troll. It necessarily demands a villain to suit the melodrama
offered. That villain is the Bird and its failure is to reveal a
power. Left unsaid is that actual power is, as I said, buried in the
digits and wholly irresolvable. Further, it is NOT the claim of 4.17
watts which was rummaged up. The Bird would be incapable of resolving
the actual reflection products from a real quarterwave section. Thus
it cannot absorb the sin of this counter-proof (sic).

Let's just say that statements that arbitrarily assign ideal concepts
like "totality" suffer across the board - and when these forced
assignments are used as the link pin to "theories," then they can lead
to amusing contradictions and failures of logic like those we've been
witness to here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:44:06 -0000, "Dave" wrote:


guess the v/i discussion is over now.


Hi Dave,

It may have been tailored in that vernacular, but it was actually
never about that at all. As the last "thin-film" comment reveals, it
has always been about how one mind can encompass two contradictory
positions (total cancellation - non total cancellation) about the same
mechanism (a quarterwave matching section).

In other words: A Troll.

The humor here is that supposedly the thin-film offers "total"
cancellation for the same reason that the quarter wave from this bench
test does not. :-)

In fact, neither exhibit "total" cancellation, but to maintain the
charade one or the other does, then that charade must fail, and these
recent arguments have just revealed that fracture.

Some time ago I offered results from the bench in just how much light
was in fact returned from a thin-film section, and this was rejected
as impossible - hence the allusion to brighter than the sun light
being rendered as black to satisfy this illusion of "totality" in
cancellation. This reflected light was buried in the digits, but
still and all, far brighter than the sun (such is the vast range of
accommodation that the eye offers as a measuring device).

On the flip side, any leakage (reflection back) from a quarterwave
section suffers identical issues. Those reflections are buried in the
digits too. This is orders of magnitude different from the speculated
4.17 watts which is a farrago. Does a Bird have the same scope of
resolution as the eye? Hardly. The inherent error of the meter at
±5% vastly overwhelms such products (the eye does not suffer such
error for other reasons - imagine what a driver's eye-check test would
be like if it did).

So, to advance this itinerant concept of Owen's demonstration not
busting the myth of the requirement for line sections, this troll has
diverged from the topic to haul out a spurious argument that is in
direct conflict with other discussions of the same topic, from the
same troll. It necessarily demands a villain to suit the melodrama
offered. That villain is the Bird and its failure is to reveal a
power. Left unsaid is that actual power is, as I said, buried in the
digits and wholly irresolvable. Further, it is NOT the claim of 4.17
watts which was rummaged up. The Bird would be incapable of resolving
the actual reflection products from a real quarterwave section. Thus
it cannot absorb the sin of this counter-proof (sic).

Let's just say that statements that arbitrarily assign ideal concepts
like "totality" suffer across the board - and when these forced
assignments are used as the link pin to "theories," then they can lead
to amusing contradictions and failures of logic like those we've been
witness to here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I think it might also be interesting to discuss the instance in which
the Bird is interfaced with a real halfwave section.

ac6xg

Owen wrote:

"The myth that measurements with a Bird 43 of conditions on the Thruline
section are invalid unless it has some minimum length of 50 ohm line on
both sides of itself is busted."

Bird says the wattmeter can be placed anywhere in the line. That
precludes a requirement to have minimum lengths of 50-ohm cable on both
sides of the wattmeter. Particular total lengths of line woould be a
function of wavelenth.

The Model 43 Thruline Wattmeter accurately measures forward or reverse
power in transmission lines under any load condition.

Regardless of the load impedance, the forward and reflected powers are
forced by construction of the coax to conform to Zo. Line volts divided
by line amps in either direction has an absolute value of 50 ohms.

Bird plug-in elements are designed for insertion into a precision
coaxial rigid air line which is a part of the Model 43. Elements are
available in a wide variety of frequency ranges and maximum power
levels..

Cancellation of response to one direction of power flow while responding
to the to the other is accomplished by careful balance of the current
and voltage samples within an element. The samples which are in-phase
add. The samples for the other direction are out-of-phase and cancel.

To make sure cancellation is complete in the undesired direction, Zo
must be as specified in the design. Accuracy can`t be expected in the
wrong Zo environment.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI