Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:06:14 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote in : On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:07:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:17:15 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Impedance matching of an SWR meter is generally unimportant since most SWR meters used for HF have a directional coupler that is much shorter than the operating wavelength. Point is that they are usually calibrated for Z0=50 ohms and are in error when used in Z0 environments differing from Z0=50 ohms, e.g. Z0=75 ohms. The point is that the error is insignificant when the directional coupler is much shorter than the wavelength. In a word, baloney. The error is independent of length. A zero length bridge calibrated at 75 ohm is in error when measuring in a 50 ohm system. Period. Prove it. The error is even more insignificant when there are a host of variables and confounds between the SWR meter and the transmitted field that can (and frequently do) affect the objective -- field strength. Often, field strength is of zero importance. What do you do when the device under test isn't supposed to radiate? That device probably wouldn't make a very good radio, would it? The simplest example of this would be a CATV system, yet VSWR is *extremely* important in cascaded networks. Thank you for making my point. It's much simpler (and just plain logical) to measure the field strength directly instead of measuring an abstract value halfway towards the objective and relying on nothing more than speculation that the rest is working according as expected. More baloney and it isn't even sliced. The word is "blarney". And although the syntax of my statement was somewhat 'convoluted', the logic is sound -- you can dyno your engine all day, but the only way to know for sure how fast you can get down the quarter mile is to run the race. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
james wrote:
Power is power. Phase is not a problem. Take the mafnitude of the transmitted power and teh magnitude of the reflected power. The results are phaseless. The magnitudes add linearly. Strangely enough, the results are not phaseless. The equation for reflected power at an impedance discontinuity is: Pref = P3 + P4 - SQRT(P3*P4)cos(theta) Where theta is the phase angle between V3 and V4, the associated reflected interferring voltages. Reference "Optics", by Hecht, Chapter 9 - Interference The last term in the equation above is known as the "interference" term. Unless you take the interference term into account, you don't have a ghost of a chance of ascertaining where the power goes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
K7ITM wrote:
Field strength alone is not acceptable to me as a means to adjust an antenna load to a transmitter, ... Doesn't being located in the near field introduce a measurement error? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil was talking about current, not power. You can't add power the way you can voltage and current. That's absolutely correct. When one adds powers, one must include the interference term which takes care of conservation of energy. The equation is: Ptot = P1 + P2 + SQRT(P1*P2)cos(theta) where theta is the phase angle between V1 (associated with P1) and V2 (associated with P2). The last term is labeled the "interference term" and is absolutely necessary when adding powers. If the interference term is positive, the interference is constructive. If the interference term is negative, the interference is destructive. The best reference on interference and the adding of powers that I have found is Chapter 9 in "Optics", by Hecht. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Gilliland wrote:
There lies our misperceptions; I was not referring to using an HF SWR meter designed for coax and plugging it into 450 ohm ladder line. But I specifically stated above the Z0 environment was different from 50 ohms. The same type of error happens when one uses a 50 ohm SWR meter in a 75 ohm coaxial line. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
james wrote:
The problem is that current is not reflected back from the load, power is. Thus the you can add magnitudes of power. If power (ExH) is reflected then, of course current is reflected. Powers can be added but you *must* include the interference term. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
james wrote:
Agreed that a rig cannot detect the difference between forward and reflected power. If the reflection coeffiecient of the source is zero then final stage of a transmiter will look purely resistive to any power reflected by the load. Thereby that refelcted power is dissapated as heat. Other reflection coefficients at the source will yield lesser amounts of reflected power from the load as heat. This is true for a source equipped with a circulator and load but most ham transmitters are not equipped with a circulator and load. You must take the phase of the voltages or currents into account in order to calculate the interference power term. Only then will you be able to tell where the power goes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Lewallen wrote:
But I do want to caution readers that this view of "reflected power" is demonstrably incorrect. So is your concept of "sloshing" energy. Reflected energy waves are demonstrably real. One can find out exactly where the reflected power goes by taking the interference power terms into account. Optics engineers figured it out a long time ago. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote: In a word, baloney. The error is independent of length. A zero length bridge calibrated at 75 ohm is in error when measuring in a 50 ohm system. Period. Prove it. A 75 ohm bridge is expecting the ratio of voltage to current to be 75 for a matched system. In a 50 ohm matched system, the ratio of voltage to current will be 50. Therefore, the 75 ohm bridge won't be balanced. A 50 ohm bridge would be balanced. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
james wrote:
snip ***** Agreed that a rig cannot detect the difference between forward and reflected power. If the reflection coeffiecient of the source is zero then final stage of a transmiter will look purely resistive to any power reflected by the load. Thereby that refelcted power is dissapated as heat. Other reflection coefficients at the source will yield lesser amounts of reflected power from the load as heat. james So if I have a perfect voltage source in series with a 50 ohm resistor, and I set the voltage source for 100Vrms (50W to the load, 50W to the source resistor) and I leave the output terminals open (100% reflected power) then the resistor will dissipate 100W? With no current flowing through it? Wow. I gotta review my basic electronics. ------------------------------------------- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|