Cecil Moore wrote:

Owen Duffy wrote:

In my 100m of W551 with a 16+j0 load at 30MHz, the loss in one metre
of line nearest the load is over 4%, the good news is that since 75%
of the transmitter power is already lost, the weighted effect of that
4.3% is nearer 1% of tx output.


What the heck is one "metre"? Netscape says that is misspelled and
probably should be corrected to "metro". Why aren't you guys on
the English system?

If the loss in each meter is 4%, wouldn't the loss in 100 meters
be 400%? What am I missing?

C'mon Cecil, you know it's an exponential decay.

I just started reading this thread. Is the loss in a 'per meter' or 'per
wavelength'? In the olden days, we quoted loss as Nepers per
wavelength. When did it change to 'percent per meter'?

AK

Amos Keag wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
If the loss in each meter is 4%, wouldn't the loss in 100 meters
be 400%? What am I missing?

C'mon Cecil, you know it's an exponential decay.

The maximum HF current point could exist in the first foot of
feedline at the source. Why would the HF losses in the transmission
line at the load ever be greater than at that maximum HF current point?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

At the same time velocity factors were converted to furlongs per
fortnight... :)

"Amos Keag" wrote in message
. ..
I just started reading this thread. Is the loss in a 'per meter' or 'per
wavelength'? In the olden days, we quoted loss as Nepers per
wavelength. When did it change to 'percent per meter'?

AK