Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: . . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with the Smith Chart... 73 de Jim, N2EY There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago. w3rv It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations either. http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html w3rv |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: . . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with the Smith Chart... 73 de Jim, N2EY There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago. w3rv It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations either. http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html w3rv I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a test on copying code by ear. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109386325.451170.282470 : Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109271864.160442.290220 : . . test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with the Smith Chart... 73 de Jim, N2EY There already are Smith Chart questions in the pool Smith Charts became obsolete eons ago. w3rv It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations either. http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html w3rv I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a test on copying code by ear. Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law.............. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law.............. With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law.............. With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions". Isn't that where weird science was invented? - Mike KB3EIA - |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law.............. With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions". Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on the display screens of various RF instruments is an indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and wideband behavior of RF structures. Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio and electronics community worldwide...but there are some huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship between complex quantities nor understand "normalization" of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug I could do complex quantity calculations on my little AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators (made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by HP) I have now. A few keystrokes is all. No "special education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a "calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them). If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then, in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote: From: "Phil Kane" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 8:23 am On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:39:00 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Smith charts are just as obsolete as Ohms law.............. With some of the Russian-trained engineers whose work my wife has to correct, Ohm's Law, as well as electrical codes, are mere "suggestions". Phil, with some of the AMERICAN trained RF folks I've worked with, the Smith Chart presentation on paper or on the display screens of various RF instruments is an indispensable tool for quickly observing both narrow- and wideband behavior of RF structures. Ohm's Law of Resistance is universally accepted in the radio and electronics community worldwide...but there are some huge exceptions with "foreign" concepts such as the Smith Chart. Olde-tyme hammes haven't a clue on what the wonderful chart tells them nor can they see the relationship between complex quantities nor understand "normalization" of impedance. Something involving algebra of three or more quantities is apparently "rocket science" to them. shrug I could do complex quantity calculations on my little AMERICAN-made HP-25 and HP-67 pocket calculators (made in HP's old plant in Oregon) and can still do them on the Singapore-constructed HP 32S II (but designed by HP) I have now. It was made in Indonesia Sweetums. Get SOMETHING right at least onece in awhile WILLYA? shrug A few keystrokes is all. No "special education" in Russia or any other foreign country needed to do that. No PC is needed either, such as finding a "calculator" Java script thing to find reactance at a frequency (I can't believe some folks never progressed far enough in self-education to learn the simple formulas for reactance...or are afraid to learn and apply them). If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete then, in this newsgroup, he will be "correct." In here the PCTA extras are always right, anyone against them hate ham radio and are always wrong. Rules of the Court as it were. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations either. http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html w3rv I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a test on copying code by ear. .. . "Test questions on Morse"? . . "People should know about Morse"? How many WPM izzat?? You obviously didn't spend much time cruising the link I posted. You don't have to have Mathcad to solve transmission line problems to get away from the primitive paper and pencil nonsense. There are freely available Excel and Java routines which will do the job too. Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe only a half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten years ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire "what-if's" on a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh. 'Tis an incredible solver which has saved me hundreds of hours of grunt number crunching (and curve plotting BS) labor both on and off the job. Don't believe the prices for it you see floating around the Web. My latest iteration is v.2000 Pro ($800) which I bought in a shrink-wrapped package for $65 at a local computer show after it was one version outdated. w3rv |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in news:1109527218.137133.13160
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109446458.805271.244940 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: It's much easier to use a Smith chart than to do the calculations You don't need a Smith chart and you don't have to do the calculations either. http://www.circuitsage.com/matching.html w3rv I still have a pad of Smith charts. I don't have Mathcad. I have the same attitude to this as I do to Morse, i.e. to each his own. I don't see anything wrong in having test questions on either subject, as I think people should know about them, I just don't think that there should be a test on copying code by ear. . . "Test questions on Morse"? . . "People should know about Morse"? How many WPM izzat?? Zero You obviously didn't spend much time cruising the link I posted. You don't have to have Mathcad to solve transmission line problems to get away from the primitive paper and pencil nonsense. There are freely available Excel and Java routines which will do the job too. Mathcad . . ah, yes . . If you do any engineering math which gets complicated in Excel you need Mathcad Alun. I've been using it for about ten years and it's become absolutely indispensible. Maybe only a half hour after I first loaded and fired Mathcad up those ten years ago and started messing with it I was running rapid-fire "what-if's" on a double integral I'd dreamed up as an exercise. Very intuitive. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to run it. Heh. 'Tis an incredible solver which has saved me hundreds of hours of grunt number crunching (and curve plotting BS) labor both on and off the job. Don't believe the prices for it you see floating around the Web. My latest iteration is v.2000 Pro ($800) which I bought in a shrink-wrapped package for $65 at a local computer show after it was one version outdated. w3rv You're right, I didn't notice that there was a Java routine and an Excel spreadsheet. I'm a patent agent these days. I may write patent applications for communications systems that have complex equations in them, but that's about as close as I get to having to solve mathematical problems, except in the hobby of course. Smith charts are actually most useful for designing stubs. I suppose I could design a stub match for a beam using a Smith chart if I felt so inclined, I know how to do it, but 9/10 of hams only follow someone else's published designs, or they might adjust the stub or other matching circuit by trial and error. For this reason I'm actually not sure of the value of testing hams on Smith charts, but I felt pretty sure I had seen a question on them in the pool? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Your Sing, Africa, ReSpirit the World | Shortwave | |||
IBRA Radio B04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
( OT ) Quite a bit... ;-) | Shortwave |