Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"How many joules are contained in that feedline?" I`ll speculate that after one second, 200 joules are contained in the forward wave on that line. Then, after two seconds, another 100 joules has been reflected back toward the line feedpoint where it opposes growth of power input to the line. Total joules on the line is 300. Forward power minus the reflected power equals 100 watts being supplied by the generator to the load with 200 watts forward power and 100 watts reflrcted power in the line. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "How many joules are contained in that feedline?" Total joules on the line is 300. That can be shown to be true by noting that during the transient buildup to steady-state, 300 joules sourced by the generator have not yet reached the load. That remains true until the generator is powered down, i.e. all during steady-state. Forward power minus the reflected power equals 100 watts being supplied by the generator to the load with 200 watts forward power and 100 watts reflrcted power in the line. But what about the people who say there's no energy in the reflected wave? Reckon how they sweep all those joules, whose energy must be conserved, under the rug? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
One should also carefully consider the
more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) ac6xg Cecil Moore wrote: Richard Harrison wrote: Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "How many joules are contained in that feedline?" Total joules on the line is 300. That can be shown to be true by noting that during the transient buildup to steady-state, 300 joules sourced by the generator have not yet reached the load. That remains true until the generator is powered down, i.e. all during steady-state. Forward power minus the reflected power equals 100 watts being supplied by the generator to the load with 200 watts forward power and 100 watts reflrcted power in the line. But what about the people who say there's no energy in the reflected wave? Reckon how they sweep all those joules, whose energy must be conserved, under the rug? :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Jim Kelley wrote:
One should also carefully consider the more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) Yes, but the 200 joules in the line was previously sourced by the generator during the transient state. It's hard to sweep 200 joules under the reflected power rug. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: One should also carefully consider the more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) Yes, but the 200 joules in the line was previously sourced by the generator during the transient state. It's hard to sweep 200 joules under the reflected power rug. So is this your proof that Joules of energy are likewise reflected from antireflective surfaces? ac6xg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
... Cecil Moore wrote: Yes, but the 200 joules in the line was previously sourced by the generator during the transient state. It's hard to sweep 200 joules under the reflected power rug. So is this your proof that Joules of energy are likewise reflected from antireflective surfaces? No, the two subjects are conceptually only distantly related so your posting is a diverting of the above issue - changing the subject back to an earlier thread: Every impedance discontinuity causes reflections. An antireflective surface is an impedance discontinuity, i.e. a change in the index of refraction between two mediums. If properly designed, the anti-reflective surface causes 100% destructive interference between the internal and external reflections each of which contain joules of energy. It is easy to prove that the internal reflection contains joules of energy. If the external reflection didn't contain any energy, then destructive interference would not be possible. Therefore, both reflections associated with an antireflective surface must contain an equal magnitude of joules. In his QEX article, Dr. Best gave us the physics equation that governs 100% destructive interference: Ptotal = P1 + P2 - SQRT(P1*P2). Assuming that power cannot exist without energy, if the energy in P1 equals the energy in P2 and the associated waves are 180 degrees out of phase, then of course 100% destructive interference occurs at the antireflective surface. That's how antireflective surfaces and Z0-matches work. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Jim Kelley wrote:
One should also carefully consider the more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) Expanding on my earlier response - For the first two seconds, the source doesn't know it is looking into an open transmission line so a 100 watt source would faithfully output 200 joules into a one second long open circuit transmission line. That 200 joules cannot be destroyed. Is it mere coincidence that the forward and reflected waves are 100 joules/sec*(one second), exactly equal to the 200 joules supplied by the source? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
is that line 1 second long, or 1/2 second long?? a 1 second long line would
take 2 seconds worth of energy from the generator before the reflection returned to let it know the line is terminated. this is of course very important if you are measuring lines with tdr's where you can really see those returned waves, of course the time it takes them to get back to the tdr is double the one-way travel time... mess it up and you are looking for faults twice as far down the line as you calculate. "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . com... Jim Kelley wrote: One should also carefully consider the more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) Expanding on my earlier response - For the first two seconds, the source doesn't know it is looking into an open transmission line so a 100 watt source would faithfully output 200 joules into a one second long open circuit transmission line. That 200 joules cannot be destroyed. Is it mere coincidence that the forward and reflected waves are 100 joules/sec*(one second), exactly equal to the 200 joules supplied by the source? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Dave wrote:
is that line 1 second long, or 1/2 second long?? a 1 second long line would take 2 seconds worth of energy from the generator before the reflection returned to let it know the line is terminated. this is of course very important if you are measuring lines with tdr's where you can really see those returned waves, of course the time it takes them to get back to the tdr is double the one-way travel time... mess it up and you are looking for faults twice as far down the line as you calculate. The line is 1 second long. The source is generating 100 watts. So the number of joules generated starting at t=0 is 100N where N is the total number of seconds. At the end of 30 seconds, the generator will have sourced 3000 joules which must be conserved. I will generate an EXCEL spreadsheet at work today and post it to my web page when I get home. It will cover the first 30 seconds in 1 second increments. It will show that of the 3000 joules sourced by the generator during that first 30 seconds, only 2700 joules have reached the load. The other 300 joules are contained in the 200W forward wave and 100W reflected wave. (200 watts)(one second) = 200 joules in the forward wave (100 watts)(one second) = 100 joules in the reflected wave 200 joules + 100 joules = 300 joules not delivered to the load -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Brainteaser
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: One should also carefully consider the more interesting variation of the problem: an open transmission line. In the steady state we have 100 watts forward, 100 watts reflected, 200 Joules in the line, and 0 watts being sourced by the generator. :-) Expanding on my earlier response - For the first two seconds, the source doesn't know it is looking into an open transmission line so a 100 watt source would faithfully output 200 joules into a one second long open circuit transmission line. That 200 joules cannot be destroyed. Is it mere coincidence that the forward and reflected waves are 100 joules/sec*(one second), exactly equal to the 200 joules supplied by the source? But you're missing, or trying to circumvent, the most interesting aspect of the problem. It's the one which highlights the very core of our disagreement. The energy stored in the line, remains stored in the line as long as steady state is maintained without a single Joule of additional energy moving into or out of the line. To me, this illustrates clearly how the fields at the impedance interfaces of a matching transformer can be maintained without requiring multiple rereflections of energy. I'm hoping some day you'll see it too. 73, ac6xg |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
brainteaser exercise | Antenna |