Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula. It's no wonder there's no phase information in your standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out. You are mistaken. If Hecht left it out then so did Gene Fuller. I suggest you listen to Gene when he says: Regarding the cos(kz)*cos(wt) terms in the standing wave equation: Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote: In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe, there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup transients died out. Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen again. The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an amplitude description, not a phase. Not only that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to see his derivations. Apparently, you are ignorant of the difference in conventions between optics and RF engineering. In optics, there is no current so there is no current changing phase at an open circuit. In optics, the M-field changes directions but not phase. In RF engineering, a change in direction of the H-field is considered to be a 180 degree phase shift. Both conventions are correct as long as one understands them. Your strange statement about Hecht above just proves your ignorance. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Hecht forgot to put the phase difference in his formula. It's no wonder there's no phase information in your standing waves, Cecil, Hecht left it out. You are mistaken. If Hecht left it out then so did Gene Fuller. I suggest you listen to Gene when he says: Regarding the cos(kz)*cos(wt) terms in the standing wave equation: Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote: In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe, there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup transients died out. Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be seen again. The only "phase" remaining is the cos (kz) term, which is really an amplitude description, not a phase. Not only that, but where did he get the idea that it was sin(kx) instead of cos(kx). I understand Hecht is a good old boy, but I'd like to see his derivations. Apparently, you are ignorant of the difference in conventions between optics and RF engineering. In optics, there is no current so there is no current changing phase at an open circuit. In optics, the M-field changes directions but not phase. In RF engineering, a change in direction of the H-field is considered to be a 180 degree phase shift. Both conventions are correct as long as one understands them. Your strange statement about Hecht above just proves your ignorance. Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations. In your case, you're using the wrong equation anyway. What you really want is Beta*l, or the radian length of your transmission line. You can get that if you know, or can measure the usual parameters in the transmission line impedance equation, using that equation to solve for Beta*l. That won't prove your theory because you still haven't shown that any one transmission line model is unique in terms of substituting for your coil, but at least it'll give you something to do. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Tom Donaly wrote:
Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289. The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field. Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite disturbance is then: E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)] Applying the indentity sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B) E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)" Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through space". I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move through a wire. Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through space - it's a standing wave." I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current phasor. Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have said the same thing about RF standing waves. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: Whatever. I'd still like to see his derivations. "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, page 289. The intensity of a light beam is associated with the E-field so Hecht's equations are in relation to the E-field. Speaking of the light standing wave: "The composite disturbance is then: E = Eo[sin(kt+wt) + sin(kt-wt)] Applying the indentity sin A + sin B = 2 sin 1/2(A+B)*cos 1/2(A-B) E(x,t) = 2*Eo*sin(kx)*cos(wt)" Hecht says the standing wave "profile does not move through space". I have said the RF standing wave current profile does not move through a wire. Hecht says the standing wave phasor "doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it represents doesn't progress through space - it's a standing wave." I have said the same thing about the RF standing wave current phasor. Hecht says the standing wave transfers zero net energy. I have said the same thing about RF standing waves. If it's a solution to the wave equation it's o.k., Cecil, but Hecht is still not using the case where there is a phase difference between the two waves. If it isn't in the original equation it won't be in the final version since they're just two ways of saying the same thing. That's fine because it's the wrong equation anyway for what you want, which involves impedances and length, which you probably don't want to deal with because you're probably under the impression they're just virtual and not real, and so not worthy of inclusion in your theory. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Tom Donaly wrote:
If it's a solution to the wave equation it's o.k., Cecil, but Hecht is still not using the case where there is a phase difference between the two waves. Yes, he is, Tom. The phase *disappears* when you add the two traveling waves. That you don't recognize that fact of physics is the source of your misconception. The forward and reflected wave phasors are rotating in opposite directions at the same angular velocity. That makes their sum a constant phase value for half the cycle and the opposite constant phase value for the other half of the cycle. I and Richard Harrison have already explained that a number of times quoting Kraus and Terman. Here are a number of problems. I(f) is forward current and I(r) is reflected current. Please everybody, perform the following phasor additions where I(f)+I(r) is the *standing wave current*: I(f) I(r) I(f)+I(r) 1 amp at 0 deg 1 amp at 0 deg _________________ 1 amp at -30 deg 1 amp at +30 deg _________________ 1 amp at -60 deg 1 amp at +60 deg _________________ 1 amp at -90 deg 1 amp at +90 deg _________________ 1 amp at -120 deg 1 amp at +120 deg _________________ 1 amp at -150 deg 1 amp at +150 deg _________________ 1 amp at -180 deg 1 amp at +180 deg _________________ If you guys will take pen to paper and fill in those blanks you will uncover the misconception that has haunted this newsgroup for many weeks. If you need help with the math, feel free to ask for help. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Cecil Moore wrote:
(snip) Here are a number of problems. I(f) is forward current and I(r) is reflected current. Please everybody, perform the following phasor additions where I(f)+I(r) is the *standing wave current*: I(f) I(r) I(f)+I(r) 1 amp at 0 deg 1 amp at 0 deg 2 A @ 0 deg 1 amp at -30 deg 1 amp at +30 deg 1.72 A @ 0 deg 1 amp at -60 deg 1 amp at +60 deg 1 A @ 0 deg 1 amp at -90 deg 1 amp at +90 deg 0 A @ 0 deg 1 amp at -120 deg 1 amp at +120 deg 1 A @ 180 deg 1 amp at -150 deg 1 amp at +150 deg 1.72 A @ 180 deg 1 amp at -180 deg 1 amp at +180 deg 2 A @ 180 deg If you guys will take pen to paper and fill in those blanks you will uncover the misconception that has haunted this newsgroup for many weeks. If you need help with the math, feel free to ask for help. What misconception? That all current in a standing wave has the same phase, rather than one of two possible phases? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
John Popelish wrote:
What misconception? That all current in a standing wave has the same phase, rather than one of two possible phases? The misconception is not yours, John. W7EL used that current to try to measure the phase shift through a coil and so did W8JI who came up with an unbelievable 3 nS. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: If it's a solution to the wave equation it's o.k., Cecil, but Hecht is still not using the case where there is a phase difference between the two waves. Yes, he is, Tom. The phase *disappears* when you add the two traveling waves. That you don't recognize that fact of physics is the source of your misconception. The forward and reflected wave phasors are rotating in opposite directions at the same angular velocity. That makes their sum a constant phase value for half the cycle and the opposite constant phase value for the other half of the cycle. I and Richard Harrison have already explained that a number of times quoting Kraus and Terman. Here are a number of problems. I(f) is forward current and I(r) is reflected current. Please everybody, perform the following phasor additions where I(f)+I(r) is the *standing wave current*: I(f) I(r) I(f)+I(r) 1 amp at 0 deg 1 amp at 0 deg _________________ 1 amp at -30 deg 1 amp at +30 deg _________________ 1 amp at -60 deg 1 amp at +60 deg _________________ 1 amp at -90 deg 1 amp at +90 deg _________________ 1 amp at -120 deg 1 amp at +120 deg _________________ 1 amp at -150 deg 1 amp at +150 deg _________________ 1 amp at -180 deg 1 amp at +180 deg _________________ If you guys will take pen to paper and fill in those blanks you will uncover the misconception that has haunted this newsgroup for many weeks. If you need help with the math, feel free to ask for help. Cecil, if you don't put any phase information in your original formula it won't be there when you say the same thing some other way. But if you do put it in there, then it has to affect both formulas. If it disappears, you've done something wrong. If you and Harrison can't figure out how to extract phase information from a standing wave you should return your diplomas to wherever you got them from. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH (P.S. Let me give you a hint: first you have to find out what phase means in a standing wave on a transmission line. You probably already think you know, though, so I don't expect you to bother much about it.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Tom Donaly wrote:
If it disappears, you've done something wrong. There is no phase information in standing wave phase, Tom. I can't find it, Gene fuller can't find it, Eugene Hecht can't find it, and James Clerk Maxwell can't find it. Any and all phase information in the standing wave phase disappears during superposing. Let me give you another example. Assume that we superpose one amp of DC current flowing in one direction and one amp of DC current flowing in the other direction. What does the superposed amplitude tell us about the amplitudes of the superposed currents? Nothing, except they were equal. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Coils and Transmission Lines.
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH wrote:
""---first you have to find out what phase means in a standing wave transmission line." Cecil knows very well what phase means in a transmission line. Terman describes it best for me, but it would be best to have his book with all his diagrams which makes his explanation of how standing waves are established simple indeed. Terman writes on page 89 of his 1955 edition: "Transmission line with Open-Circuited Load." (This is related to the standing-wave antenna which also ends up with an open-circuit load.) "When the load impedance is infinite, Eq.(4-14) (This gives the reflection coefficient rho as the vector ratio of the reflected wave to the incident wave at the load) shows that the coefficient of reflecftion will be 1 on an angle of zero. Under these conditions the incident and reflected waves (voltages) will have the same phase. As a result, the voltages of the two waves add arithmetically so that at the load E1 = E2 = EL/2. (Voltage doubles at the open circuit.) Under these conditions it follows from Eqs. (4-8) (Eforward/Iforward=Zo) and (4-11) (Ereflected / Ireflected=-Zo) that the currents of the two waves are equal in magnitude but opposite in phase; they thus add up to zero load current, as must be the case if the load is open-circuited. Consider now how these two waves behave as the distance l from the load increases. The incident wave advances in phase beta radians per unit length, while the reflected wave lags correspondingly; at the same time magnitudes do not change greatly when the attenuation-constant alpha is small. The vector sum of the voltages of the two waves is less than the arithmetic sum, as illustrated in Fig. 4-3a, for l=lambda/8. This tendency continues until the distance to the load becomes exactly a quarter wavelength, i.e.,until beta l = pi/2. The incident wave has then advanced 90-degrees from its phase position at the load, while the reflected wave has dropped back a similar amount. The line voltage at this point is thus the arithmertic difference of the voltages of the two waves, as shown in Fig. 4-3a, for l=lambda/4 and it will be quite small if the attenuation is small. The resultant voltage will not be zero, however, because some attenuation will always be present, and this causes the incident wave to be larger and the reflected wave to be smaller at the quarter-wave length point than at the load, where the amplitudes are exactly the same." This is enough of Terman`s desctiption to establish the pattern of SWR. He describes simply but not too simply. Almost anything anyone would want to know is in the book. The illustrations are worth thousands of words. Anytime I have any doubt about radio, Terman can straighten me out. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Coils are transmission lines | Antenna | |||
Self capacitance of solenoid coils | Antenna | |||
Antenna Loading Coils | Antenna | |||
Radiation Resistance & Efficiency | Antenna | |||
phasing coils | Antenna |