QRZ Forums > Amateur Radio Technical Forums > General Technical Questions and Answers > The

Dark Side
of the Conjugate Match
PDA
View Full Version : The Dark Side of the Conjugate Match

KL7AJ 03-12-2010, 09:50 PM

Hi everyone:

First of all, thanks for all the wonderful comments on SWR METERS MAKE YOU STUPID. That article was a real
labor of love for me, and apparently it struck a lot of responsive chords. We hams NEED to think about things
in different ways once in a while...keeps the cobwebs out of the brain! I also want to reiterate that none of
that information is new or even controversial to most professional R.F. folks, or physicists. I think only my
presentation was a bit unconventional. :)

With that in mind, I'd like to mention another aspect of this whole conjugate match business, which I
intentionally omitted in the original article.

We know that the conjugate match theorem tells us that maximum power transfer between a generator
(transmitter) and a load when the impedance of the load is the complex conjugate of the source impedance.

There's little controversy over this, and it applies whether you have a transmission line involved or not. It also
applies from DC to daylight. A car battery will deliver maximum power to a starter motor when the starter
motor impedance is equal to the internal resistance of the battery.

What most hams DON'T realize about this is that the condition for maximum power transfer (perfect conjugate
match) also results in a 50% overall system EFFICIENCY! Half the power is burned up in the internal resistance
of the battery (or transmitter) and the other half actually does something you want...like start a car or
transmit a radio signal. In fact, this is the BEST you can do, even theoretically. Which begs the question, even
if a conjugate match is always ACHIEVABLE, is a conjugate match always DESIRABLE?

Answer: It depends.

In a well designed, modern H.F. transceiver, actually both those goals are NEARLY met
simultaneously...efficiency and maximum power output. Especially for Single Sideband, 50% efficiency is
pretty doggone good. There's no compelling REASON to try to get more efficiency than this. You might get
slightly better intermod specs or such by "unloading" the transmitter a bit, but generally, if you present the rig
with a conjugate match, you'll do just fine.

If you're running a 50KW broadcast station, 24/7, and paying for every dime of "juicitricity" EFFICIENCY takes
on a whole new meaning. A typical A.M. broadcast transmitter runs at about 85% R.F. conversion efficiency
with full modulation.

You're probably asking, "How do they DO that with a conjugate match?"

Answer: They don't!

At KJNP we had a 1970 Harris VP-50 (vapor-phase cooled) 50kw transmitter. It had a single 7480 triode in the
final, run at "hard" class C. It would put out 100 kW with full modulation without even asking, "Mother may I"
just by cranking up the plate loading a bit. If you DID say, "Mother May I," you could get about 150 KW out of
the thing...but with lame modulation. Obviously we didn't RUN it that way, since it would have been grossly
illegal. (Don't ask how I knew this by the way. :) ) But it would simply LOAF ALONG at 50 KW.
The point is, the NORMAL operating condition was WELL below the conjugate match point. It was quite lightly
loaded. Tons of power to spare, with high EFFICIENCY, but nothing like a match for maximum power
output...more like 35 percent.

(Note: For you tube savvy folk....you would NOT want to run a TETRODE loaded lightly like this, as light
loading would cause excessive SCREEN current. Why, you might ask. Under light loading the Plate voltage
makes extreme excursions...for part of the cycle it's actually BELOW the screen voltage. During this time the
SCREEN acts like the plate....not too healthy for the screen!)

Now, perhaps some of you are asking, "How's the CLASS of operation affect the conjugate match?"
Well, it doesn't change the definition of the conjugate match one iota...it just changes the numbers you plug
in. The SOURCE impedance of a tube (or any device, for that matter) is roughly the DC impedance times the
inverse of the DUTY CYCLE. For something like a switching regulator, this is a fairly simple calculation. For a
non-square R.F. wave, it's a bit more complex, but the principle is the same. All things being equal, a Class C
amplifier has a higher SOURCE impedance because it's not "ON" as frequently. A class A source impedance is
much lower. Again, assuming all other parameters are the same...which they generally aren't. BUT...the
general rule is, a Class C amplifier will be much lighter loaded for a given power than a Class A amplifier. And
Class AB and othe in betweens, similarly scaled.

(One of the things that are NOT equal, which complicates things a bit is that a class C amplifier, while on "less"
is turned on HARDER when it IS on. So, you have other things to consider.)

Eric

KL7AJ 03-12-2010, 10:16 PM

SWR Meters Make You Stupid

Or

Ladder Line to Eternity

It may have already occurred to you that it might be desirable to locate your amateur radio antenna at some
distance from your transmitter and/or receiver. In fact, unless you intend to operate your station from the top
of a tree or a tower, it is very likely that you will be employing some form of transmission line. The purpose of
a transmission line is to convey radio frequency energy from a radio set to an antenna, or vice versa, in as
painless a fashion as possible. You can think of a transmission line as an extension cord for R.F. In fact, for
the lower regions of the radio frequency spectrum, actual extension cord can serve reasonably well, for
reasonable distances.

Like so many other facets of Amateur Radio, the transmission line seems to have taken on a life of its own,
accumulating a vast, sticky, woolly hairball of misinformation along the way. This is all so unnecessary. A
transmission line is a means to an end, never an end in itself. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

A Bit of History

In the early years of radio, there wasn't much of a line of demarcation between a transmission line and an
antenna. In fact, let's look at a very typical amateur radio antenna of days past. It consisted of an array of
parallel wires, or “flat-top” arranged much like a clothes line, and a SINGLE WIRE leading from the flat top to
the transmitter. This single wire “transmission line” typically radiated as much signal as the flat-top antenna
itself, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Anything you could hang out there in space that radiated a signal
was a help.

Countless hundreds of thousands of long-distance radio contacts were made with such contraptions.

If it Ain't Broke, Fix it Anyway

Despite the unquestioned effectiveness of such an arrangement for much of amateur radio's history, for some
Despite the unquestioned effectiveness of such an arrangement for much of amateur radio's history, for some
mysterious reason, sometime around the end of the First War to End All Wars, it was decided that life
shouldn't be so simple. This bizarre concept of “specialization” began to infiltrate life on Planet Earth. The
specialization Nazis decided that an antenna should radiate and a transmission line should not. It was
discovered that a single wire transmission line could be made to not radiate by placing another single wire
transmission line next to it, and grounding it at the “bottom” end—the end nearest the transmitter. Add twice
the copper to disable half the antenna...such a deal! Sounds like a government project, doesn't it?

Well, this is one concept that, alas, couldn't be blamed on the government. It was actual radio amateurs who
came up with this “idea.” The end product of this was what was called the “Zepp” antenna, because it was
used on Zeppelins.

Actually, we shouldn't be too harsh. The whole idea of a non-radiating transmission line was to somewhat
remove one source of high voltage R.F. from the immediate vicinity of a gasbag the size of Milwaukee filled
with hydrogen. For some peculiar reason, certain white-smocked hand-wringers were a bit nervous about
sources of high voltage R.F. being right next to a gasbag the size of Milwaukee filled with hydrogen. Since the
onboard radios at the time were spark gap transmitters, it probably wasn't too bad an idea to keep this fact
under consideration, after all. We still ended up with the Hindenburg disaster, but at least it wasn't caused by
the radio on board! (At least as far as we know).

After hams resumed their post-war operations, and had better things to do with their skills than preventing
dirigibles from bursting into flames, they discovered that the Zepp antenna actually worked fairly well on the
ground, as well. (Well, actually a few feet OFF the ground, but you see our point).

Now, in order to keep the two halves of the Zepp transmission line fairly parallel, under which condition they
did the least amount of radiating, the two wires were held together (or apart) with uniformly spaced insulators,
giving the transmission line a somewhat ladder-like appearance. Oddly enough, it came to be called ladder
line. Of course, once again, they couldn't leave well enough alone. Some genius somewhere imagined that the
TOP end of the second wire of the ladder line should actually go somewhere. In the conventional Zepp
configuration, it didn't. It just ended. This bothered some people. The fact that it actually worked was
immaterial. Some people just hate things like lopsided antennas and the number Pi, no matter how well they
work. So, once again, they decided to try to fix something that wasn't all that broken.

After a lot of pondering about exactly WHAT the free end of the ladder line should go to, one of the
aforementioned someones decided that if that went to an antenna wire as well, things might be more
symmetrical.

And so was born the `Double Zepp” antenna, actually two Zepp antennas fed end to end with just one
transmission line. The symmetry gods were pleased. And to be honest, the antenna actually worked slightly
better than the single-sided Zepp...it had a slight amount of actual gain over the original incarnation. But,
perhaps more significantly, the function of the antenna and the transmission line were now two entirely
separate entities. Everything was wonderful.

Actually, not. Our troubles had just begun.

Don't Try This at Home

With a few very rare exceptions, the early impoverished radio amateur usually had little if anything that
resembled actual test equipment. In fact, most of the diagnostic equipment that modern hams take for
granted was not available at any price for much of amateur radio's existence. This was actually a good thing,
for a few reasons:

Amateur radio station performance was based strictly on...well...performance. The only indication that things
were working as they should was the fact that one was making a lot of contacts. The lack of test equipment
kept the end goal well in sight.
Ham radio was cheaper. Why use an expensive plate current meter when you could check your transmitter's
tuning by seeing how long an R.F. arc you could draw from the final tube's plate cap to the tip of a lead pencil
held in your bare hand? YES! Hams actually DID this...and most lived to tell about it. Cabinet? What cabinet?

You were likely to make a useful accidental discovery from time to time. Theory is great...up to a point. It
helps explain what you already discovered by accident, but it doesn't often lead to new discoveries, at least on
its own. You need to get knocked on your keister a few times and singe a few eyebrows to really understand
radio. (Don't tell OSHA I said this, by the way).

The salient point is that having a lot of “tools” around usually gives you more information than you need to
know, and unless you know how to USE that information, it can be worse than ignorance, as we shall shortly
see.

Sometime between the two wars to end all wars, radio amateurs discovered that you could make a
transmission line radiate almost NOTHING if you kept the currents in each leg of the ladder precisely equal in
magnitude, and OUT OF PHASE. This allowed the antenna to behave more like a pure antenna, and the
transmission line to behave like a pure transmission line. The original Zepp was a half-step in this direction,
but the double Zepp really completed the task. Hams started worrying about transmission line current balance
a lot...whether they could afford to or not. If you were really cheap and/or poor, the instrument of choice was
a pair of incandescent lamps, one in each leg of the ladder line. If you were really high-falutin' you had an
actual R.F. ammeter in each leg. (You can see these instruments in a lot of ancient ham station photos; they
were about the size of modern watt-hour meters). If the currents were equal in each leg, it meant your
antenna was doing most of the radiating, and the transmission line wasn't, which was generally a good thing.
With but one small rub.

The antenna current meters, whether they were just a couple of light bulbs or high-falutin' R.F. ammeters, told
you nothing about the relative phase between the two legs. However, it was generally assumed that if your
double Zepp antenna was PHYSICALLY symmetrical, and your ladder line was relatively perpendicular to said
double Zepp, the current phases WOULD be, indeed, equal and opposite. So, though not really scientifically
rigorous, the R.F. ammeter pairs turned out to be quite useful. At the very least, tuning for MAXIMUM R.F.
current always resulted in the strongest radiated signal. In the case of light bulbs, you just tuned for
maximum brightness, and all was right in the world. For a while, at least.

However, hams being who they were, weren't content unless they had something new to worry about. At this
point, we need to take a small departure, and introduce yet another Dead Ham, an obscure German electrical
engineer by the name of Ernst Lecher. He lived at the turn of the century...the 20th century, that is. His work
had already, for the most part, been learned and forgotten by much of the radio world by mid century. Alas,
poor Ernst did much of his great work before anyone had a use for radio. He was well ahead of his time.
Unfortunately, if you look up Ernst Lecher on the Internet, you will be inundated with all sorts of really bizarre
“information” about things like psychic energy and even dousing rods, for Pete's sake!

Let me set the record straight on behalf of poor Ernst, who is undoubtedly spinning in his grave and unable to
defend himself against his brainless “disciples” and various other tin-foil-hat groupies. Ernst Lecher had
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with metaphysics, dousing rods, psychic energy, or any other kind of New Age
wacko pseudo-science. He was a REAL scientist, a REAL engineer, and achieved REAL results in a REAL
laboratory. I pronounce a festering POX upon all those who desecrate his name with such unmitigated
balderdash and buffalo snot.

Let's look, instead, at his REAL contribution to radio knowledge, the Lecher Line, (also known as the Lecher
Wire).

A Lecher line is a fabulously simple and revealing instrument. It allows you to measure wavelength of a radio
signal directly...the first instrument in existence to allow one to do so. It consists of nothing more than a pair
of parallel wires or copper rods, a couple of wavelengths long or so, at the frequency of interest, with a
yardstick or (or meter stick) placed along the line. You also have a moveable voltage detector so you can
measure R.F. voltage at any location along the line. (I built a really snazzy Lecher Line for my electronics
class that always generates lots of ooohs and ahhs from my rapt students).

You feed a small amount of R.F. into one end of the line, which sets up STANDING WAVES along the line. As
you slide the R.F. voltage indicator along the line, the voltage will swing between some maximum voltage and
zero each half wavelength. You simply measure the distance between the zero voltage points and voila, you
have precisely half a wavelength. Well, almost precisely, since there's a small delay time of a wave
propagating through a Lecher Line as compared to free space...that is, the VELOCITY FACTOR through a
transmission line is slightly less than that of free space. Just a couple of percent additional delay for a typical
set of lines with about 3” spacing between rods. (You can also measure the distance between MAXIMUM
voltage points, but these are much less defined, whereas a ZERO or NULL is extremely sharp).

At any rate, it's a very sensitive and accurate instrument...in fact, until the 1950s the Lecher Wire was the
most accurate means of measuring UHF signals known. Frequency counters didn't exist.

The Lecher Line also serves as an extremely high Q (selective) circuit in UHF amplifiers and filters. Variations
of the Lecher Line (loaded Lecher Lines) have also been used that are a bit smaller than the full sized version.
Most high power FM broadcast transmitters still use some variation of the loaded Lecher Line in the plate
tuning circuit.

In addition, devices such as the shorted stub tuner, nearly universal in the microwave industry, are based on
the Lecher Line. In fact, as any microwave engineer can tell you, ANY impedance can be matched to ANY
OTHER impedance using just two stub tuners. All because of Ernst Lecher and his fabulous trained STANDING
WAVES.

So simple, so educational, so elegant, and so incredibly useful. And yet, sadly, one more source of
posthumous Ernst angst.

For, in recent years, STANDING WAVES have come to be viewed as something to be avoided like the Ebola
virus. This, more than any other misconception, has resulted in the single greatest source of Amateur Radio
Stupidity Exchange (ARSE). For some inexplicable reason that will probably never be known, presumably
sentient, rational beings become the village idiots of the Petri dish when the term STANDING WAVE is uttered,
wringing their collective hands, palpitating in unison and hyperventilating in horror.

The fact of the matter is that about 95% of what makes radio work at all is the application of STANDING
WAVES of some sort. Standing Waves are like water. Just because some Cro-Magnon manages to drown
himself in a bathtub is no reason the rest of us need to live on a diet of dry sand. Amateur Radio NEEDS
standings waves to survive!

Now, there may be a few readers who have never encountered the term standing wave ratio, or SWR. If you
happen to be one of these individuals, consider yourself most blessed, indeed. You will not have to “unlearn”
anything. You are a blank slate, unencumbered by countless man-centuries of accumulated collective
ignorance pertinent to the subject.

Are you ready?

Great! Let's get started.

One of the best habits you can get into as a new radio amateur is the habit of MEASURING everything. You
NEVER want to take anyone's word for anything when it comes to amateur radio electronics, (or any other
subject, for that matter), even from an infallible reliable source (or even me!) This one habit alone, if followed
religiously, would eliminate 99% of ARSE, as defined above. The fact of the matter is that actually doing
experiments takes a bit of work...repeating ignorance takes none whatsoever. Well, maybe flapping your
gums uses a calorie or two, but that's about it.

Here's another great principle, right from the physics lab: If you want to know what's happening, follow the
heat.

What's this mean? Quite simple, actually, but it does have some subtle implications. When you generate a
certain amount of radio frequency energy, it can only go to two places. It can be radiated into space. Or it can
make something hot. There are no other options.
We'll see why this is crucially important as we move along.

No End in Sight

Let's take a look at a transmission line that's infinitely long...our Ladder Line to Eternity. At the far end of the
ladder line, let's put a 100 watt light bulb. (Granted, it may take you a while to stroll out there and attach the
light bulb, and then stroll back to complete the experiment, but bear with us for a moment).

Now, let's connect a 100 watt radio transmitter to the input end of our infinite transmission line. Let's turn on
the radio transmitter for precisely one second, and then turn it off. Now, let's go make some coffee, and while
it's perking away, or dripping away, or reheating in the microwave, we'll rummage around in our closet and
find an old pair of binoculars. We grab our coffee and sit down on the lawn and train our binoculars toward the
end or our infinite length transmission line. (It might be advantageous to do this experiment at night, as you
can imagine). Actually, it will take an infinite amount of time for the one-second R.F. burst to get to the light
bulb, and ANOTHER infinite period of time to see the results of the light bulb.

Most likely, this experiment will fail, unless you live to a REALLY REALLY REALLY ripe old age. But that's okay;
even failed experiments are educational.

Let's modify our experiment a little, so as to be a bit more likely to succeed. Let's use a transmission line
that's only one light minute long. That will be a mere 11.16 million miles long, plus some spare change, a
MUCH more manageable figure.

Again, let's turn our transmitter on for one second, and then turn it off. We'll now train our binoculars on the
light bulb a mere 11.16 million miles away. After TWO minutes, we'll see the light bulb turn on, for exactly one
second. (Again, keeping in mind it takes a minute for the light from the bulb to get back to your eyeball).

Now, isn't that amazing?

At the risk of unduly complicating matters, we'll add a few minor details. One should know that a conventional
incandescent light bulb is horribly inefficient. If you're lucky, about 2-1/2% of the energy is actually converted
into light; the remaining 97.5% is, you guessed it, HEAT. It also has a resistance that changes dramatically
with the power applied, which becomes more relevant when we use light bulbs for actual R.F. indicators. But
we have a long ways to go in our lesson before those factors become significant.

The important point to glean from this is that ALL the energy we sent down the transmission line, (100 watt-
seconds in this case, to be precise) is dissipated, that is, never to be heard from again. It is LOST energy.
Radio energy radiated from an antenna is also LOST energy. Of course, it might be a little philosophically
weird to call the energy radiated from an antenna “lost” because that is the whole purpose of the thing in the
first place. But we can never call that energy back, which is the important point.

Now, if you've been really paying attention, you may have thought to yourself, “What about that 59 second
interval before the energy reaches the light bulb? How can we even define POWER or ENERGY? Don't you need
some sort of LOAD? Until the burst gets to the light bulb, there IS no load! Aren't we violating Ohm's Law...or
something?”

All excellent questions. And they are central to the discussion.

This is where we encounter a mysterious entity known as “Characteristic Impedance.” Characteristic

impedance can be thought of as an EQUIVALENT RESISTANCE at the input end of an infinitely long
transmission line. Its value is independent of the length of the line. It is a function of the spacing between the
conductors, and the diameter of the conductors. There's a formula that's not too complicated, but you don't
need to memorize it. You just need to know that the characteristic impedance is LOW for closely spaced, fat
conductors, and HIGH for widely spaced, thin conductors. For typical commercial-grade ladder line, it's about
450 ohms. In days of yore, homebrew ladder line generally ran at around 600 ohms.

Now, this is where we get to the good stuff.

As far as your transmitter is concerned, characteristic impedance of an infinite line appears as a REAL
resistance. You can calculate power generated just as if the input terminals of the transmission line were a
REAL flesh-and-blood (or at least, CARBON) resistor.

And furthermore... until the transmitted signal REACHES the far end of the transmission line AND back (we'll
talk about reflected waves shortly) the input impedance is also equal to the characteristic impedance of the
transmission line. In other words, the impedance a transmitter sees for a BURST is always equal to the
Characteristic Impedance, no matter WHAT happens to be dangling at the far end of the line. (We will see that
for STEADY STATE radio signals the situation can be very different). We could also say that AT THE INSTANT
of launch, we can use the characteristic impedance to calculate power and energy of any transmitted signal,
using voltage and current, just as if it were an actual physical resistance.

So now, if we were to REMOVE the light bulb from the far end of the transmission line, and repeat the
experiment, it wouldn't make a hill of beans worth of difference as far as our transmitter is concerned...at
least for two minutes...after which time it wouldn't matter anyway, since by that time our transmitter has been
long shut down! Our transmitter has no way of knowing (or caring) what's at the far end of the transmission
line, under instantaneous (short burst) conditions.

I think you'll agree that the description of a burst's behavior in a transmission line is pretty trivial...hardly
worth elaborating.

Where things get interesting (and more complicated) though, is when we have FORWARD and REFLECTED
waves occurring simultaneously. But take heart...we don't have to deal with that quite yet.

Let's return to our missing light bulb configuration. What DOES happen to that 100 watt-second burst when it
encounters a “bridge out” condition?

Interestingly enough, the R.F. energy doesn't just blorp out of the end of the transmission line into space. If it
COULD do this, there wouldn't be much point in an antenna in the first place. In fact, if you could invent a
transmission line that could efficiently blorp R.F. off into space, you'd be a very rich person.

Instead, what happens is that the R.F. burst gets TOTALLY REFLECTED back toward the source. That energy
has to go somewhere, and if it's not converted into heat or radiated into space as a radio signal, it has to find
someplace where it CAN do either one or the other.

Well, to be perfectly honest, it DOES have one other option. It can keep bouncing around forever. We'll talk
about that option a bit later.

But first, let's modify our test setup once more. Let's leave the far end of the transmission line flapping in the
breeze. (Hmmm...I guess at 11.16 million miles out in space, there probably isn't much of a breeze).
Anyway...we have an UNTERMINATED transmission line out yonder.

At the NEAR end we'll connect a double throw switch, so we can conveniently connect either a transmitter or a
light bulb to the transmission line.

Now, we'll throw the switch to the transmitter side and send a one second burst. Next, we'll shut off the
transmitter and throw the switch to the light bulb side, and wait a couple of minutes. (Actually one minute and
59 seconds).

Voila! At the appointed time, the light bulb shines for one second. Aren't we amazed? What have we learned?
Well, a couple of things, at least. Number one is that REFLECTED energy is REAL energy. We were able to light
our light bulb with the energy that was reflected from the far end of the un-terminated transmission line.

The second thing we learned is that that transmission line is 11.16 million miles long. Well, we already knew
then when we strung the thing out there, didn't we? But, in case we didn't, we could have determined its
length by carefully measuring the round trip time, knowing that electrical currents travel through a
transmission line at about 186,000 miles a second, plus some loose change.

In fact, telecommunications people actually use this method in the real world for locating discontinuities in
otherwise inaccessible transmission lines. This method is called TDR for “Time Domain Reflectivity”
measurement. As you might suspect, in the real world, we don't usually have 11.16 million-mile-long
transmission lines. Actual TDR tests use much shorter bursts...generally in the order of nanoseconds...which
will allow you to measure transmission lines that are mere hundreds of feet long. As long as your outgoing
burst quits before your reflected burst comes back, you can do TDR tests. (You also don't generally use light
bulbs for TDR detectors, but rather oscilloscopes).

Now, let's talk a bit about the discontinuities mentioned in the previous paragraph. You don't need totally open
(or shorted) transmission line to give you a reflected energy burst. It's just that under these two conditions
you get TOTAL reflected energy. (You also get total reflected energy if the termination is a pure
reactance...either a perfect capacitor or inductor...but we'll address that later).

At any rate, a discontinuity is any sudden change in the characteristic impedance of the transmission line,
such as a point where the lines are squished closer together or stretched apart. (A sudden right-angle bend
will also cause a small discontinuity). A burst of R.F. will be partially reflected from any discontinuity in a
transmission line. Part of it will be returned to sender; part of it will be passed along to the termination. Very
gradual changes in characteristic impedance will NOT cause a discontinuity. In fact, “tapered” transmission
lines can be used as smooth impedance matching devices. Such things as the slant wire feed and the delta
match, both variations of the tapered transmission line, were universally used in the broadcast industry and
amateur radio for much of their early history. (There's an ancient local A.M. broadcast station in Fairbanks
that until just a couple of years ago used a slant-wire-fed grounded tower! I had the dubious honor of working
on the thing at one time.)

Anyway...where were we? Oh yes...discontinuities and partial reflections. We need to set the record straight
right here and say that these are NOT inherently bad things! We can USE reflections on a transmission line to
do all kinds of useful and wonderful things. We can't just IGNORE them, but we don't need to wring our hands
over them, either! Things are generally SIMPLER when there no reflections to contend with; but this by no
means suggests that a MATCHED transmission line system is necessarily any better than an unmatched one.
We'll talk a bit about the CONJUGATE MATCH before too long. As a prelude to this, however, let's modify our
experiment one more time.

Let's remove the light bulb from the double-throw switch, and connect a shorting bar to those terminals,
instead. Switch the switch to the transmit side. Send a one-second burst, turn off the transmitter, and then
throw the switch to the other side. What happens when the pulse returns from the distant land and encounters
the shorting bar? Why, it gets TOTALLY REFLECTED back out to the far end again! In fact, it will keep bouncing
back and forth between the two ends of the transmission line forever. Actually, we could REMOVE the shorting
bar and get the same result...an OPEN transmission line is just as reflective as a SHORTED one. As long as
there is NO RESISTANCE in the termination, the reflection is total.

Now, we hope you have understood that all the previous discussion assumes an IDEAL transmission line. We
always have to study IDEAL components in order understand the real-world editions thereof. Actual, practical
transmission lines have resistive losses in them, which complicates the matter a little bit. In reality, an R.F.
burst would never even make it to the far end of an 11.16 million mile transmission line. (Well, actually, it
WOULD, but it would be less than the cosmic noise in the wire by the time it got there!) In reality, H.F. radio
signals start running into trouble after a couple of miles, even in the best transmission lines humanly
makeable. (I understand someone was able to make Ethernet work over a mile of rusty barbed wire, but this
is NOT recommended practice!)

Now for the FUN Part

Hopefully you've been able to follow, and actually ENJOY some of this transmission line stuff, because we're
just about ready to get to the real meat.

We've intentionally separated our FORWARD and REFLECTED signals for all the previous discussion. This is
easy to do with short bursts, for (hopefully) quite obvious reasons.

However, amateur radio transmissions do NOT consist of such short bursts of R.F. (relative to the length of the
transmission line, that is. A CW “dit” is MUCH less than a second long...but typical ham radio transmission lines
are MUCH less than 11.16 million miles long, as well!) In typical communications service (as opposed to
RADAR), any reflected signal on a transmission line is almost assuredly going to coincide with, or overlap, the
outgoing signal. This opens up ENTIRELY new phenomena...as well as potential for confusion.

Whenever two electrical signals overlap each other in a conductor, you have the potential for interference to
occur. If you remember from our chapter on antenna fundamentals, interference can be either constructive or
destructive. Interference can occur in wires, just as it can in free space, with much the same results.

Allow me to introduce one more term that will help tie all this together: the Superposition Theorem.

Now, the Superposition Theorem is one of those physical truisms that seem so obvious it shouldn't even need
mentioning, but it has profound implications. Stated simply, it's this:

At any point in time, any given location on a wire must have one and only one voltage.

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? Or to state it even more stupidly: You can't have two voltages in one place
at the same time.

How does this truth affect life on Earth as we know it?

If we have two waves traveling on a wire...one going East and one going West...at ANY point on the wire, the
waves MUST add or MUST subtract. There are no other options.

Now, whether they ADD or SUBTRACT depends on their relative phasing. For the case of total reflection, we
have a few options. An OPEN transmission line termination (no termination) will return a reflected radio signal
IN PHASE with the forward signal. The two signals will SUPERIMPOSE, or ADD at the point of reflection. Since
the forward and reflected signal amplitudes are equal, the VOLTAGE at the termination point will be twice what
it would be if no reflection existed. You can actually see this with a Lecher Wire. Remember the Lecher Wire at
the start of the chapter? You just KNEW we'd come back to that sooner or later, didn't you? Well, here we are!

What about the case of a dead short at the termination?

Again, we have total reflection, but the reflected wave is 180 degrees OUT OF PHASE with the forward wave.
So the SUPERIMPOSED voltage will be the DIFFERENCE between the forward and reflected signals, which are,
as mentioned above, EXACTLY equal (but opposite). The resulting voltage at that point will be zero, as the
Superposition Theorem tells us it must be. But we already know that, because we ALWAYS have zero volts
across a dead short! So, whether we're treating our transmission line as a “lumped constant” (Ohm's Law)
device or as a “distributed” (wave) device, we come up with the same answer!

Which brings us to another DEEP truth about physics. Our Universe is staggeringly consistent. If we can't
arrive at PRECISELY the same answer to a problem by approaching it from two different angles, we're doing
something WRONG! You can ALWAYS double-check this stuff. Don't take my word for it. MEASURE it yourself!

Now this process of superimposing an East traveling wave and a West traveling wave on a single pair or wires
generates what is known as a STANDING WAVE. It's fairly obvious why it's called this; the relative values of
voltage (SUPERPOSED VOLTAGE, that is, remain stationary relative to position along the line. You can see
mechanical standing waves on any vibrating object, a plucked guitar string, for example. Or you can wobble a
curly telephone cord back and forth and generate nice standing waves (if you can still find a phone with an
actual cord!) You can easily measure electrical standing waves with a Lecher Wire...in fact, that is its main
function.

Now, here's something very interesting and important.

Remember how we demonstrated that a FORWARD moving wave (traveling wave) has real energy? We lit up
a light bulb with it. Remember how we demonstrated that a REFLECTED traveling wave has real energy? We lit
a bulb with that too.

But guess what? A Standing Wave has no energy! It is a pure mathematical construct! It is analogous to
isobar lines on a weather map. They INDICATE where pressure air pressure variances occur but they are NOT
air pressure in themselves.

Now a system that SUPPORTS standing waves does indeed store energy. But this energy is in the form of
forward and reflected REAL energy waves. The STANDING wave is just the visible, but powerless (“Wattless”)
MANIFESTATION of the two traveling wave components.

And this one point is where most of the Amateur Radio Stupidity Exchange concerning transmission lines
comes from. A standing wave in itself can do NOTHING good or bad to any piece of amateur radio equipment.
Blaming “standing waves” for transmitter damage or other ills is like blaming the number Pi for the truck tire
that ran over your foot. Yes, Pi describes the diameter and circumference of the truck tire that ran over your
foot, but Pi is NOT a truck tire!

Does this mean that we ignore standing waves? Not at all! But we need to know that Standing Waves are an
INDICATION...not the THING ITSELF. With the PROPER INTERPRETATION, they can tell us a few things.
Unfortunately, most hams have no clue how to properly interpret standing waves.

Fortunately, we don't HAVE to! There are other MUCH more meaningful indications than standing wave ratio
that we can use to know what's really happening. REAL things with REAL effects.

Conjugal Rights

The Superposition Theorem allows us to do some really amazing things with transmission lines. But to
understand this requires that you have ABSOLUTE FAITH in Ohm's Law. We already showed how consistent
our physical universe is. You don't violate physical laws...they violate YOU. They apply EVERYWHERE, from all
viewpoints.

We talked briefly about characteristic impedance of a transmission line...how it's built into the physical
construction of the line...how it's totally independent of length...how it doesn't care what's at the far end.

However, despite this seeming rigidity, the Superposition Theorem allows us to ALTER the impedance of a
transmission line at different locations, using the magic of wave interference. Let's look how this works.

Let's return to the case of a transmission line with a dead short at the termination. We know the forward and
reflected power are the same, but the voltages are exactly out of phase. (Grudgingly deferring to the SWR-
obsessed, we have infinite SWR on this transmission line). Now, moving BACK from the termination by wave,
we see something interesting. We have added an extra 90 degrees of phase lag to our reflected signal, but
that OVERLAPS the outbound signal 90 degrees BEFORE the latter reaches the termination. So, what happens
is the two overlapping voltages are now 0 (or 360 degrees, depending on how you look at it) apart. In other
words, wave back from the termination, the voltages are IN PHASE, and therefore add.

We now have a maximum voltage point. But when we look at the POWER, something doesn't add up. Or does
it?
How much power is delivered to the load? Well, a dead short doesn't dissipate ANY power, so the answer is
zero. How much power is reflected? All of it. At any point along the transmission line, the reflected power
equals the forward power, so the TOTAL power has to equal zero. But we're measuring a HIGH voltage wave
back from the termination. How do we reconcile a high voltage with no power? The answer is Ohm's law. What
circuit condition, in combination with a very high voltage gives us zero power? Infinite resistance! That's right.
One quarter wave back from the termination, we have an infinite resistance load. Physically, it's a chunk of
transmission line; electrically it's a chunk of air. Pretty amazing, isn't it?

How about if we go back a half-wave from the termination? Well, we get an additional 180 degree phase
change between forward and reflected voltages. The forward and reflected voltages cancel, and we get zero.
Let's double check. Zero volts across zero ohms is how much power? Zero!

Transmission lines REPEAT the load impedance every half wave, and INVERT the impedance every quarter
wave. And also every ODD multiple of a quarter wave. However, in every case, if we have either a dead short
or an open termination, the total power is zero.

If we insert a transmitter at any point in the transmission line, how much power will the transmitter put out?
ZERO!

What heresy is this??!! A transmitter's OUTPUT power is determined by the LOAD impedance? Are we nuts?

Well, do you believe Ohm's Law or not? How you answer the following two questions will reveal who the REAL
heretic is!

How much power can a transmitter put into a dead short?

(Answer: Zero).

How much power can a transmitter put into an open circuit?

(Answer: Zero.

You CANNOT violate Ohms law. It violates you if you try.

Often I hear statements like “If you have a big mismatch, all that reflected power is going to come back and
burn up your transmitter!”

Impossible. Absolutely impossible...at least in this world. And most likely in the next, as well. All that reflected
power, as we've clearly demonstrated, prevents the transmitter from generating the power in the first place!

Engrave this on the inside of your eyelids:

WHERE A TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTS, THE POWER GENERATED BY ANY RADIO TRANSMITTER EQUALS THE
FORWARD POWER MINUS THE REFLECTED POWER IN THE TRANSMISSION LINE. ALWAYS.

It's important to note the clause “where a transmission line exists,” because, as we mentioned very early in
the article, this is far from always the case. Think of all those hand-held radios out there with a whip sticking
right out of the radio.

Are we saying that it's impossible to damage any radio transmitter by having a “bad” load? No, not at all. You
can torch almost any transmitter by putting a dead short on it. And you can fry most modern radios by having
an open circuit on them, as well, mainly by over-voltage of the output transistors. But it is NOT the SWR that
does the damage! NEVER NEVER NEVER. A transmitter always sees an IMPEDANCE; it never sees an SWR.
And don't ever forget it.

We've talked about reflections. We've talked about MULTIPLE reflections. And it is with regard to multiple
reflections that things get really useful and clever.

The conjugate matching theorem tells us that maximum power will be transferred between a generator
(transmitter) and a load when the load impedance is the COMPLEX CONJUGATE of the source impedance. This
is a good thing to know. Without going into a lot of esoteric math, what the conjugate match theorem tells us
is that you can match ANYTHING to ANYTHING with just two components, one parallel and one series. And
sometimes less, if you're lucky.

When it comes to transmission lines, it translates into this: Any reflection in a transmission line can be
compensated for with an equal and opposite reflection elsewhere in the transmission line.

We should, in all fairness, add one small caveat to this: The load impedance must have a real value of
resistance less than infinity but greater than zero. What this means is that you really CAN'T match into a dead
short or an open circuit...but you can come really really really close to doing it, if you have large enough
matching components. The real point is that you only need TWO of them.

Let's look at a practical example to demonstrate this. Let's say we have a dipole antenna that has a radiation
resistance of 50 ohms. To keep things simple, let's assume our antenna is perfectly resonant. (Reactive
terminations of transmission lines can be a bit trickier to analyze). We want to feed this with 450 ohm ladder
line. We know that we will have a 9:1 impedance mismatch at the antenna. (Assuming our transmission line is
very good, we'll have the same mismatch at the INPUT end as well). Once again, in deference to our SWR
worrywarts, we have an SWR of 9:1. Now, this is one case where this SWR information is good to know. What
this tells us is that we have a WIDE RANGE of impedances to choose from, depending on our transmission line
length. We know that if we pick a multiple of a half-wavelength, our transmission line input impedance will
REPEAT the load impedance. So, if we cut our line to be a full wavelength long, we will have 50 ohms
impedance, which will make most transmitters happy all by itself. What if we choose a transmission line length
of wave? We know the impedance of a wave line INVERTS itself. The quarter wave transmission line is a very
useful special case. If the load is resistive (which in this case it is), the input impedance is equal to the
characteristic impedance squared, divided by the load impedance. (This is called the “geometric mean”). So
this gives us 450 squared divided by 50= 202,500/50=4050 ohms.

Well, not too many transmitters are going to be happy with a 4050 ohm load...even if it IS purely resistive!
So, this might not be too smart a choice of transmission line length.

On the other hand, what if we replace our dipole with the venerable Double Zepp, mentioned in the beginning
of this fascinating chapter? As it turns out, the impedance at the center of a double Zepp is on the order of
2500-3000 ohms at resonance. Let's use a value of 2500 ohms, just for jollies. If we were to connect a 450
ohm line to the center of that, wave long, what might we expect to see at the input end? Using our same
geometric mean formula, we have 450 squared divided by 2500, which gives us an impedance of 81 ohms at
the input end. Oh, joy joy! This is well within the “happy” range of any typical ham transmitter. With no further
adjustments whatsoever, our transmitter will put out 96% of the power that it would put into a perfect 50 ohm
load...assuming the transmitter is truly optimized for 50 ohms. (I have to admit I cheated to come up with the
answer...the venerable ARRL Antenna Book has all kinds of handy graphs to show power loss vs impedance
mismatching and such. It's okay to use cheat charts and computers as long as you don't use them as a
substitute for thought processes).

What have we done with the impedance inversion of the wave transmission line? We've performed a
conjugate match. The impedance looking back TOWARD the transmitter with the wave section in place is the
COMPLEX CONJUGATE of the antenna impedance itself.

Now, sections of transmission lines are not the only means of performing conjugate matching. In fact, using
“series sections” as described in the above has become a bit of a lost art in most modern ham shacks.
Standard practice now is to use a “lumped constant” antenna tuner, using one or more coils and capacitors to
perform the conjugate match. As mentioned earlier, there is NO fundamental difference between lumped
constants and distributed components as far as the physics is concerned. Any combination of distributed and
lumped components may be used to achieve a conjugate match. In the above example, it might be practical
to use a lumped component tuner to move that 81 ohms down to 50 ohms for the truly obsessive. More
commonly, a lumped tuner would be used to tune out REACTANCES where the antenna is operated somewhat
commonly, a lumped tuner would be used to tune out REACTANCES where the antenna is operated somewhat

removed from its resonant frequency.

It should be emphasized that NO amount of twiddling of an antenna tuner at the INPUT end of a transmission
line has any effect whatsoever on the standing wave ratio on that transmission line. The SWR is determined
ONLY by the load impedance at the line termination. The antenna tuner only adjusts the impedance the
transmitter sees.

Now, this fact brings up another very interesting point. Let's say we have a 100 watt transmitter, designed for
a 50 ohm load. We have a wide range antenna tuner immediately after the transmitter. Beyond that, we have
a length of transmission line, finally terminated in a severely mismatched antenna. Let's use our very first
example, with a 450 ohm transmission line and a 50 ohm antenna. We have a 9:1 SWR on the transmission
line. Taking a gander at another ARRL Handbook chart, we see that we will have about 60 watts of reflected
power on the transmission line.

Now, remember what I had you engrave on the inside of your eyelids a while back? Transmitted power is
equal to forward power minus reflected power.

Now, if we twiddle the antenna tuner so that our transmitter sees 50 ohms, we know the transmitter is putting
out 100 watts. On the far side of the antenna tuner (away from the transmitter) we see 60 watts of power
reflected from the antenna toward the antenna tuner. Does something seem amiss? Is our transmitter only
putting out 40 watts? No...it's seeing 50 ohms...so we know it's putting out 100 watts (assuming the
transmitter is functioning properly). Let's look at the FORWARD power on the transmission line. 160 watts!
Well, how about that? Now the math works out...but WHERE does that extra 60 watts come from? Our
transmitter can only put out 100 watts. What have we overlooked?

It's simple. It's a DOUBLE reflection. The 60 watts of REFLECTED power is RE-REFLECTED from the antenna
tuner...actually added IN PHASE with the original forward power. But WHY the double reflection?

Without KNOWING it...when we adjusted our antenna tuner to make our transmitter “happy” we created a
conjugate match on the other side of the tuner. It's actually a gross mismatch looking toward the
transmitter...but it's a gross mismatch in the exact Complex Conjugate of the impedance looking the other
way!

Actually, in this example, we have TWO complex conjugate pairs...one at the junction of the input of the tuner
and the transmitter...and another at the junction of the antenna tuner's output and everything after it!

Again, this is stuff you can CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE on the work bench. I always love showing a room
full of skeptical “SWR Gurus” how the forward power on the output of a tuner EXCEEDS the power capacity of
the transmitter!

Well, I suppose I could go on and on about this absolutely intriguing subject, but instead I'll refer you to two
pieces of required reading:

“My Feedline Tunes My Antenna,” By Byron Goodman, W1DX (SK). Originally published in QST in 1956, it has
been reprinted several times since. A genuine classic, and a fine example of clear analytical thinking...a rarity
in ham radio today.

“Reflections” by Walt Maxwell, W2DU. This is the most eloquent and detailed work on the subject ever written.
Most of the material in this EPILOGUE chapter was stolen, not in prose, but in principle, from Walt's writings.
This originally appeared in a series of QST articles in the 1970s, but has been consolidated in a couple of
excellent books, Reflections and Reflections II. I understand there's a Reflections III coming out soon.

AC0FP 03-12-2010, 10:22 PM

This will certainly cause some to scratch their heads! Good job!

fp
K8ERV 03-12-2010, 10:28 PM
I thot conjugate was something married couples did.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

G3TXQ 03-12-2010, 10:40 PM

Here's a couple I did earlier:

http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/puzzles/18_matching3.png
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/reflections.jpg

Steve G3TXQ

KL7AJ 03-12-2010, 11:01 PM

Here's a couple I did earlier:

http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/puzzles/18_matching3.png
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/temp/reflections.jpg

Steve G3TXQ

Hi Steve:

I'd like to build an accurate reflectometer for open wire lines. This would be a great demonstration for this.
Very good on yer part.

I don't know if you caught the thread about RECEIVING antennas. It works precisely in reverse the same way.

Eric

AG3Y 03-12-2010, 11:13 PM

I thot conjugate was something married couples did.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

Awww, Tom, you don't know nuttin' :eek: That's what you do with VERBS ! ! ! :rolleyes: ;) :cool:

Now, don't go an' ax me HOW ! :eek:

AF6LJ 03-13-2010, 12:04 AM

HOW did I miss this one I have some catching up to do......

AF6LJ 03-13-2010, 12:11 AM

Hi everyone:

First of all, thanks for all the wonderful comments on SWR METERS MAKE YOU STUPID. That article was a real
labor of love for me, and apparently it struck a lot of responsive chords. We hams NEED to think about things
in different ways once in a while...keeps the cobwebs out of the brain! I also want to reiterate that none of
that information is new or even controversial to most professional R.F. folks, or physicists. I think only my
presentation was a bit unconventional. :)

With that in mind, I'd like to mention another aspect of this whole conjugate match business, which I
intentionally omitted in the original article.

We know that the conjugate match theorem tells us that maximum power transfer between a generator
(transmitter) and a load when the impedance of the load is the complex conjugate of the source impedance.

There's little controversy over this, and it applies whether you have a transmission line involved or not. It also
applies from DC to daylight. A car battery will deliver maximum power to a starter motor when the starter
motor impedance is equal to the internal resistance of the battery.
motor impedance is equal to the internal resistance of the battery.

What most hams DON'T realize about this is that the condition for maximum power transfer (perfect conjugate
match) also results in a 50% overall system EFFICIENCY! Half the power is burned up in the internal resistance
of the battery (or transmitter) and the other half actually does something you want...like start a car or
transmit a radio signal. In fact, this is the BEST you can do, even theoretically. Which begs the question, even
if a conjugate match is always ACHIEVABLE, is a conjugate match always DESIRABLE?

Answer: It depends.

In a well designed, modern H.F. transceiver, actually both those goals are NEARLY met
simultaneously...efficiency and maximum power output. Especially for Single Sideband, 50% efficiency is
pretty doggone good. There's no compelling REASON to try to get more efficiency than this. You might get
slightly better intermod specs or such by "unloading" the transmitter a bit, but generally, if you present the rig
with a conjugate match, you'll do just fine.

If you're running a 50KW broadcast station, 24/7, and paying for every dime of "juicitricity" EFFICIENCY takes
on a whole new meaning. A typical A.M. broadcast transmitter runs at about 85% R.F. conversion efficiency
with full modulation.

You're probably asking, "How do they DO that with a conjugate match?"

Answer: They don't!

At KJNP we had a 1970 Harris VP-50 (vapor-phase cooled) 50kw transmitter. It had a single 7480 triode in the
final, run at "hard" class C. It would put out 100 kW with full modulation without even asking, "Mother may I"
just by cranking up the plate loading a bit. If you DID say, "Mother May I," you could get about 150 KW out of
the thing...but with lame modulation. Obviously we didn't RUN it that way, since it would have been grossly
illegal. (Don't ask how I knew this by the way. :) ) But it would simply LOAF ALONG at 50 KW.
The point is, the NORMAL operating condition was WELL below the conjugate match point. It was quite lightly
loaded. Tons of power to spare, with high EFFICIENCY, but nothing like a match for maximum power
output...more like 35 percent.

(Note: For you tube savvy folk....you would NOT want to run a TETRODE loaded lightly like this, as light
loading would cause excessive SCREEN current. Why, you might ask. Under light loading the Plate voltage
makes extreme excursions...for part of the cycle it's actually BELOW the screen voltage. During this time the
SCREEN acts like the plate....not too healthy for the screen!)

Now, perhaps some of you are asking, "How's the CLASS of operation affect the conjugate match?"

Well, it doesn't change the definition of the conjugate match one iota...it just changes the numbers you plug
in. The SOURCE impedance of a tube (or any device, for that matter) is roughly the DC impedance times the
inverse of the DUTY CYCLE. For something like a switching regulator, this is a fairly simple calculation. For a
non-square R.F. wave, it's a bit more complex, but the principle is the same. All things being equal, a Class C
amplifier has a higher SOURCE impedance because it's not "ON" as frequently. A class A source impedance is
much lower. Again, assuming all other parameters are the same...which they generally aren't. BUT...the
general rule is, a Class C amplifier will be much lighter loaded for a given power than a Class A amplifier. And
Class AB and othe in betweens, similarly scaled.

(One of the things that are NOT equal, which complicates things a bit is that a class C amplifier, while on "less"
is turned on HARDER when it IS on. So, you have other things to consider.)

Eric
You just did a wonderful job of condensing two chapters in the radio handbook into one and a half pages. :)
(for those who want the math go read the Radio Handbook or an older ARRL Handbook)

K8JD 03-13-2010, 01:44 AM

I have not studied so hard since I was 20. Head hurts now.

W5DXP 03-13-2010, 03:43 AM

Half the power is burned up in the internal resistance of the battery (or transmitter) ...

Not necessarily. A non-dissipative resistance definition is covered in The IEEE Dictionary under "(B) the real
part of impedance", i.e. no dissipation required. An example is the Z0 of a transmission line which is mostly
resistive yet non-dissipative.

The conjugate matching theorem applies only to lossless systems and therefore an ideal conjugate match
The conjugate matching theorem applies only to lossless systems and therefore an ideal conjugate match
cannot exist in reality. But it is easy to check for a near-conjugate match in a low loss system.

Adjust your antenna tuner until your transmitter sees 50 ohms, i.e. an SWR of 1:1. Disconnect the transmitter
cable and put a 50 ohm non-inductive resistor across the tuner input. Disconnect the tuner output and
measure the impedance looking up the transmission line toward the antenna, e.g. R+jX. Measure the
impedance looking back into the output terminal of the tuner. If that impedance is close to R-jX, the system is
tuned to as close to a conjugate match as is possible in a real-world system with losses. In the real world, we
are usually forced to settle for a Z0-match which, in a lossless system, would guarantee a conjugate match.

You see, one of the premises of the conjugate matching theorem is that if there is a conjugate match at one
point, there is a conjugate match at all points. Unfortunately, that can only happen in a lossless system. But if
in a low-loss system we can prove that the impedance measured in one direction is nearly the conjugate of
the impedance measured in the other direction, we are as close to a conjugate match as we are going to get
in the real world.

W5DXP 03-13-2010, 04:41 AM

WHERE A TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTS, THE POWER GENERATED BY ANY RADIO TRANSMITTER EQUALS THE
FORWARD POWER MINUS THE REFLECTED POWER IN THE TRANSMISSION LINE. ALWAYS.

For that to be true, the transmitter would have to be re-reflecting 100% of the reflected wave energy incident
upon the transmitter. But that would prove a Z0-match exists and we know it almost always doesn't exist.
What you have stated is an imperfect assumed solution to an age-old conundrum.

It is a "by definition only" rule because it is very difficult to determine how much reflected energy is being
dissipated in the source. A signal generator equipped with a circulator-load driving a long transmission line can
be proven to violate that concept. The measured energy being dissipated in the circulator-load at any instant
can be proven by modulation to have made a round trip to the load and back. I have observed such using a
TV signal where the signal driving the circulator-load has been delayed by the transmission line.

What actually happens inside a transmitter is a combination of reflection (depending upon the impedance
discontinuity) and wave cancellation (depending upon the phase of the forward and reflected waves).
Depending on whether the internal interference between the forward wave and the reflected wave is
constructive or destructive, any percentage of the reflected wave energy between 0% and 100% can be
dissipated inside the transmitter. I can prove it for an ideal voltage source and series source resistor.

AF6LJ 03-13-2010, 03:06 PM

I have not studied so hard since I was 20. Head hurts now.
This is good stuff, I am just lapping it up like a cat to tuna juice. :)

W5DXP 03-13-2010, 03:49 PM

A few more comments: Sometimes RF math models and shortcuts run afoul of the laws of physics. In
particular, parts of the standing wave math model fall into those categories. Even though the math may work,
it sometimes diverges from reality. Here are a few random points.

The energy in an RF EM wave is, like visible light, photonic in nature and must obey the known laws of
physics. Photons must move at the speed of light in the medium, taking the velocity factor into account. This is
a fact for light waves and RF waves, whether traveling or "standing". Photons cannot stand still.

It is obvious that an RF standing wave is not really "standing" since photons cannot stand still. There only
exists an illusion of "standing" and many people have been fooled by that illusion. There is always forward
wave energy moving in one direction at the speed of light and reverse wave energy moving in the other
direction at the speed of light. Unless those two waves encounter an impedance discontinuity, they do not
interact within a fixed Z0 transmission line and have (almost) no effect on each other. When we say that a
standing wave contains no (available) energy, we are talking about energy available to be delivered to a load.
There is indeed no energy delivered to the load when an ideal standing wave exists. But energy continues to
exist in the forward traveling wave and in the reverse traveling wave. That's why the losses in one wavelength
of feedline go up as the SWR goes up.

Here is a purely conceptual example that will illustrate the above point. Assume a 100 watt constant power
source feeding a one second long lossless transmission line with a power reflection coefficient of 0.5
(SWR=5.82:1). The forward power is 200 watts and the reflected power is 100 watts. From the key-down
transient state to steady-state, it can be shown that 300 joules of energy has been generated that has not yet
reached the load. Note that is pure RF photonic energy, not watts. During steady-state, there exists 200 joules
of RF photonic energy in the forward wave and 100 joules of RF photonic energy in the reflected wave for a
total of 300 joules of RF photonic energy existing in the transmission line. All of that energy is moving at the
total of 300 joules of RF photonic energy existing in the transmission line. All of that energy is moving at the
speed of light in the transmission line medium. It is impossible for it to be standing still in the standing waves.

Here's a couple of quotes from two textbooks:

Quoting one of my college textbooks, Electrical Communication, by Albert:

"Such a plot of voltage is usually referred to as a voltage standing wave or as a stationary wave. Neither of
these terms is particularly descriptive of the phenomenon. A plot of effective values of voltage, appearing as
in Fig. 6(e), is not a wave in the usual sense. However, the term 'standing wave' is in widespread use."

From "College Physics", by Bueche and Hecht:

"These ... patterns are called standing waves, as compared to the propagating (traveling) waves considered
above. They might better not be called waves at all, since they do not transport energy and momentum."

If someone told you that there is no traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge because the northbound traffic equals
the southbound traffic, would you believe him? :)

N8CPA 03-13-2010, 04:47 PM

I thot conjugate was something married couples did.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

In a way, you're right. If you misconjugate the match, you might copulate your whole system.

N0SYA 03-13-2010, 06:21 PM

isnt a conjugate match what the prisoners get?

K8ERV 03-13-2010, 11:10 PM

Please! They are NOT prisoners. They are Detainees. Where u been?

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

VK2TDN 08-01-2010, 01:16 AM

Hi Eric,

Only just discovered this thread whilst searching about the meaning of "a conjugate match" after a question I
posed in the microwaves101 forum.

very enjoyable and informative reading

thanks so much

Dave
VK2TDN

AB9LZ 08-01-2010, 01:54 AM

Bu.. bu.. but none of this 'splains how to find the G5RV menu setting on my new rig.

73 m/4

WB2WIK 08-01-2010, 02:06 AM

Is that pretty much the same thing?:)

If not, I'll need a tuner for the XYL, and she's not going to like it.

K7JBQ 08-01-2010, 11:54 PM

Ah, I thought women were always looking for the "perfect match."
You mean "Mr Right" is not the same as "Mr. 50 Ohms?"

73,
Bill

WA9SVD 08-02-2010, 02:39 AM

I thot conjugate was something married couples did.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

Nah! It's a form of torture imposed upon Latin students. Just don't ask what "declension" is. It's too horrible to
describe on the "Zed." ;-)

WA4OTD 08-02-2010, 02:43 AM

The match required for lowest noise figure is also normally slightly off conjugate match.

W8JI 08-02-2010, 01:16 PM

Hi everyone:

With that in mind, I'd like to mention another aspect of this whole conjugate match business, which I
intentionally omitted in the original article.

We know that the conjugate match theorem tells us that maximum power transfer between a generator
(transmitter) and a load when the impedance of the load is the complex conjugate of the source impedance.

There's little controversy over this, and it applies whether you have a transmission line involved or not. It also
applies from DC to daylight. A car battery will deliver maximum power to a starter motor when the starter
motor impedance is equal to the internal resistance of the battery.

What most hams DON'T realize about this is that the condition for maximum power transfer (perfect conjugate
match) also results in a 50% overall system EFFICIENCY! Half the power is burned up in the internal resistance
of the battery (or transmitter) and the other half actually does something you want...like start a car or
transmit a radio signal. In fact, this is the BEST you can do, even theoretically. Which begs the question, even
if a conjugate match is always ACHIEVABLE, is a conjugate match always DESIRABLE?

Answer: It depends.

In a well designed, modern H.F. transceiver, actually both those goals are NEARLY met
simultaneously...efficiency and maximum power output. Especially for Single Sideband, 50% efficiency is
pretty doggone good. There's no compelling REASON to try to get more efficiency than this. You might get
slightly better intermod specs or such by "unloading" the transmitter a bit, but generally, if you present the rig
with a conjugate match, you'll do just fine.

If you're running a 50KW broadcast station, 24/7, and paying for every dime of "juicitricity" EFFICIENCY takes
on a whole new meaning. A typical A.M. broadcast transmitter runs at about 85% R.F. conversion efficiency
with full modulation.

You're probably asking, "How do they DO that with a conjugate match?"

Answer: They don't!

At KJNP we had a 1970 Harris VP-50 (vapor-phase cooled) 50kw transmitter. It had a single 7480 triode in the
final, run at "hard" class C. It would put out 100 kW with full modulation without even asking, "Mother may I"
just by cranking up the plate loading a bit. If you DID say, "Mother May I," you could get about 150 KW out of
the thing...but with lame modulation. Obviously we didn't RUN it that way, since it would have been grossly
illegal. (Don't ask how I knew this by the way. :) ) But it would simply LOAF ALONG at 50 KW.
The point is, the NORMAL operating condition was WELL below the conjugate match point. It was quite lightly
loaded. Tons of power to spare, with high EFFICIENCY, but nothing like a match for maximum power
output...more like 35 percent.

(Note: For you tube savvy folk....you would NOT want to run a TETRODE loaded lightly like this, as light
loading would cause excessive SCREEN current. Why, you might ask. Under light loading the Plate voltage
makes extreme excursions...for part of the cycle it's actually BELOW the screen voltage. During this time the
SCREEN acts like the plate....not too healthy for the screen!)
Now, perhaps some of you are asking, "How's the CLASS of operation affect the conjugate match?"

Well, it doesn't change the definition of the conjugate match one iota...it just changes the numbers you plug
in. The SOURCE impedance of a tube (or any device, for that matter) is roughly the DC impedance times the
inverse of the DUTY CYCLE. For something like a switching regulator, this is a fairly simple calculation. For a
non-square R.F. wave, it's a bit more complex, but the principle is the same. All things being equal, a Class C
amplifier has a higher SOURCE impedance because it's not "ON" as frequently. A class A source impedance is
much lower. Again, assuming all other parameters are the same...which they generally aren't. BUT...the
general rule is, a Class C amplifier will be much lighter loaded for a given power than a Class A amplifier. And
Class AB and othe in betweens, similarly scaled.

(One of the things that are NOT equal, which complicates things a bit is that a class C amplifier, while on "less"
is turned on HARDER when it IS on. So, you have other things to consider.)

For those learning about the conjugate match, nearly all of the above is incorrect.

As W5DXP correctly points out, there is no rule that the real part of an impedance has to be a dissipative
resistance.

Many years ago when the endless argument between Bruene and Maxwell was in full heat, I measured dozens
of amplifiers. A deep class C amplifier, when tuned for maximum efficiency, looked almost exactly like a
conjugate match (doing a load-pull). At that point the efficiency was something like 80%. This was not a
special "trick" amplifier, it was a modified DX100 Heathkit with high bias on the grids (short conduction angle)
and third harmonic resonators in the anode and grid to sharpen transition slope of the plate current waveform.

Of all the transmitters and amplifiers I tested, the one universal occurrence was they reached peak efficiency
very close to the point where they also looked like a conjugate match. At that point, efficiency could easily be
well over 50%.

The systems did not need to operate with a conjugate match, but doing so certainly did not limit efficiency to
50% or less!!!! I am absolutely positive my measurements were good, because I verified them several ways
and tested quite a few transmitters and amplifiers.

Automotive alternators, if tested with constant field levels (no feedback from regulator), behave the same
way. A load pull will show they deliver maximum possible load power when conjugately matched, and the
efficiency can be more than 50%.

If anyone tells you efficiency has to be 50%, they probably do not fully understand impedance and the fact
that the real part does NOT have to be a resistor or dissipative resistance. :-)

Even the rules of the theorems clearly state the theorems cannot be used to tell us anything about what goes
on the source so far as efficiency, and that the theorems cannot be used in the non-linear portion of the
system. (This is not transfer ratio linearity, but rather the impedance linearity.) The output systems in our
transmitters and amplifiers do not have to be conjugately matched, and often are not conjugately matched,
but to have peak efficiency and maximum power transfer we better have it damn close to a conjugate match!

73 Tom

W5DXP 08-02-2010, 01:40 PM

If anyone tells you efficiency has to be 50%, they probably do not fully understand impedance and the fact
that the real part does NOT have to be a resistor or dissipative resistance.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to review the three separate definitions of impedance from The IEEE
Dictionary:

"impedance -

(1)(A) The corresponding impedance function with p replaced by jw in which w is real. Note: Definitions (A)
and (B) are equivalent.

(1)(B) The ratio of the phasor equivalent of a steady-state sine wave voltage ... to the phasor equivalent of a
steady-state sine wave current ...

(1)(C) A physical device or combination of devices whose impedance as defined in definition (A) or (B) can be
(1)(C) A physical device or combination of devices whose impedance as defined in definition (A) or (B) can be
determined. Note: This sentence illustrates the double use of the word impedance ... Definition (C) is a second
use of "impedance" and is independent of definitions (A) and (B)."

Only the "physical device", i.e. an "impedor", necessarily dissipates power. All up and down a transmission
line with reflections, the ratio of voltage to current is an impedance that does not dissipate power. The ideal
resistive characteristic impedance of a transmission line doesn't dissipate power. Why is it so hard to accept
the fact that an RF source impedance may have a non-dissipative resistive component?

We were all told in our EE classes that an equivalent circuit's internal dissipation doesn't necessarily bear any
resemblance to the dissipation in a real world source and should only be used to predict external conditions.

WB2UAQ 08-02-2010, 04:17 PM

A good signal generator is a good example a 50 ohm source. An output leveling circuit keeps the voltage
constant just a head of a series 50 ohm RESISTOR. Keeping the voltage constant simulates an ideal voltage
source. The series 50 Ohm resistor forces the circuit to be a "50 Ohm source". As Eric pointed out at the
beginning the energy is divided equally between this source resistance and the 50 ohm load resistance at max
power into the 50 OHm load. My point is that our transmitters are not configured like this at all. I view them as
just energy sources designed to deliver a certain amount of power into 50 ohms or whatever impedance it
was designed to drive. Never think of our transmitters as 50 ohms sources in the Thevenin equivalent sense.
As a side note, a good sig gen can become a 600 ohm source just by adding a 550 ohm resistor in series with
its output or a 75 Ohm source if 25 ohms is added in series, etc..
73, Pete

K7FE 08-02-2010, 04:21 PM

I must agree with Tom and Cecil. A conjugate match may certainly achieve higher efficiencies than 50%. Most
of the transmitters that I have designed over the last 40+ years have had efficiencies much higher. MOSFET
designs using Class D amplifiers have efficiencies approaching 90%.

Transmitter efficiencies are largely determined by the operating class, then comes design and match. A poor
design and/or a poor match will reduce the "expected" efficiency for a particular class of amplifier. One should
always attempt to provide a conjugate match, but "close" is what we usually achieve. Close works fine with
little contribution to losses and resulting output power. A bad design.......well is just bad and may have many
undesired effects. Efficiency degradation is one of them.

The 50% loss in a battery while powering a load statement was dis proven over 100 years ago. (I think by
Edison.) To improve the DC efficiency, one must only find a battery with a lower internal Resistance than the
load. That way less power is dissipated in the battery and more in the load.........thus higher than 50%
efficiency.

73,
Terry

W8JI 08-02-2010, 11:44 PM

A good signal generator is a good example a 50 ohm source. An output leveling circuit keeps the voltage
constant just a head of a series 50 ohm RESISTOR. Keeping the voltage constant simulates an ideal voltage
source. The series 50 Ohm resistor forces the circuit to be a "50 Ohm source". As Eric pointed out at the
beginning the energy is divided equally between this source resistance and the 50 ohm load resistance at max
power into the 50 OHm load. My point is that our transmitters are not configured like this at all. I view them as
just energy sources designed to deliver a certain amount of power into 50 ohms or whatever impedance it
was designed to drive. Never think of our transmitters as 50 ohms sources in the Thevenin equivalent sense.
As a side note, a good sig gen can become a 600 ohm source just by adding a 550 ohm resistor in series with
its output or a 75 Ohm source if 25 ohms is added in series, etc..
73, Pete

Pete,

No one said or implied we cannot make a source that has a dissipative resistance dominating source
impedance.

That being said, amplifiers with conduction angles shorter than 360 degrees are not signal generators though
large pads. Neither are power limited sources, like an alternator with fixed levels of field excitation or a fixed
level of energy driving the shaft.

There are countless examples of systems that have a conjugate match with efficiency greater that 50%, thank
goodness!!! A conjugate match absolutely does not mean efficiency is 50% or less.
73 Tom

WB2UAQ 08-03-2010, 04:17 PM

Tom,
I was thinking about bringing this up with my last remark in regard to sig generator output impedance. This
might have been covered earlier by Eric as well. The topic being the impact of the source impedance when
making accurate SWR or RL or Z measurements using directional couplers.
This might also help explain why there are concerns about why different SWRs can be measured in an RF path
depending on where the SWR measurement is made in the path.
If the effective source impedance of the sig generator (or one our of amateur band transmitters) and the SWR
measuring instrument following (SWR looking back into the SWR meter and thru the SWR meter into the
transmitter) do not have a good match to the transmission line, re-reflections will cause errors. The higher the
SWR becomes on the line the greater the error becomes because the reflected signal is re-reflected by this
poor match. However, if the SWR is very low, the reflected signal is very low and the re-reflections are small
making the error small. In the end, if the effective match is good to begin with, the re-reflections are very low
for even high SWR's so the accuracy of the measurement is much better. This is why the SWR measurement
uncertainty is a function of the SWR being measured and the effective source match. So, with a transmitter
having no where near the ideal source impedance, higher SWR measurements (with higher re-reflections) will
be messed up and will change depending on where the SWR meter is placed in the transmisson line. Hopefully
I explained this well enough and I didn't make a mess of it:) This is all in some famous app notes that HP
published and supplied with their early vector and scalar network analyzers before computers made it possible
to calibrate out the errors due to directivity and source match and so forth.
I often thought about this when testing an antenna with an actual transmitter (with a non-ideal source
impedance)and not a good sig gen. I would think this would impact measurements made even with a Bird 43
watt meter as it uses a directional coupler scheme. 73 Pete

W5DXP 08-03-2010, 09:33 PM

Steady-state SWR = [1+SQRT(Pref/Pfor)]/[1-SQRT(Pref/Pfor)]

The source impedance may indeed affect the magnitude of Pfor but the source impedance in no way affects
the ratio of Pref/Pfor which is dictated by the mismatch at the load.

W8JI 08-03-2010, 11:30 PM

Tom,
I was thinking about bringing this up with my last remark in regard to sig generator output impedance. This
might have been covered earlier by Eric as well. The topic being the impact of the source impedance when
making accurate SWR or RL or Z measurements using directional couplers.
This might also help explain why there are concerns about why different SWRs can be measured in an RF path
depending on where the SWR measurement is made in the path.

Source impedance has no effect on SWR measurement Pete.

If the effective source impedance of the sig generator (or one our of amateur band transmitters) and the SWR
measuring instrument following (SWR looking back into the SWR meter and thru the SWR meter into the
transmitter) do not have a good match to the transmission line, re-reflections will cause errors. The higher the
SWR becomes on the line the greater the error becomes because the reflected signal is re-reflected by this
poor match.

It doesn't matter if the source looks like one ohm or 1000 ohms, it will not change SWR ratio. Nothing we do
with impedances on the input side of the bridge changes SWR.

The exception would be if harmonics or spurious signals are generated, but that has nothing to do with
changing the fundamental frequency SWR.

For example an amplifier can generate harmonics that excite the line backward, and in that case the bridge
can be sensitive to the termination on the exciter side of the bridge, but that has nothing to do with
fundamental frequency SWR changes.

I would think this would impact measurements made even with a Bird 43 watt meter as it uses a directional
coupler scheme.
coupler scheme.

Doesn't happen Pete, I can assure you of that!

Take a clean transmitter, run it into a tuner, and then into the SWR meter and a load. No matter what we do
with the tuner SWR will stay the same, with the sole exception of nonlinear changes in the SWR meter (meter
error) slightly changing things as power level is varied.

73 Tom

W2DU 08-04-2010, 09:44 PM

I thorougly enjoyed Eric's introductory post on this thread--great writing, Eric!!! I'm particularly pleased that
he used my Reflections as a basis for his lucid description of wave mechanics on transmission lines. His
breezy style is attention getting, in contrast to my more formal style. However, one topic in his presentation is
the only one on which I have to disagree--that half the power developed in a Class C RF amp is dissipated in
the amp with the other half delivered to the load. This is incorrect, because in normal operations less than half
of the power is dissipated in the amp, which is why efficiency in these amps can exceed 50 percent. So I'll
explain why:

First, it is because the source resistance of the amp is non-dissipative--yep, that's right--non-dissipative.
There are two resistances involved in the efficiency--one dissipative and the other non-dissipative. The
dissipative resistance Rd is the cathode-to-plate resistance, which accounts for heating the plate as it is
bombarded with electrons from the cathode. The non-dissipative resistance is developed by the voltage-
current relationship, E/I, that appears at the output of the pi-network. If you have difficultly in accepting the
validity of non-dissipative resistance check out the definition of both resistances in the IEEE dictionary.
Another example is the Zo of a transmission line. When the line is lossless Zo = Ro exactly, which is non-
dissipative because in this case Ro = E/I, the ratio of voltage to current in the line when terminated with
resistance Ro.

I explain this concept in great detail in Chapter 19 of Reflections, using an example presented by Terman in
his Radio Engineering Handbook. I urge you to review this chapter, which can be found on my web page at
www.w2du.com. In that chapter I also report data resulting from measurements of the source resistance of RF
amps. However, some critics have told me that I can't prove a conjugate match using only resistive load. So
subsequent to the data published in Reflections 2 I made additional measurements using complex loads, which
continue to prove not only that a conjugate match occurs when delivering all available power at a specific
drive level, but it also proves that the source resistance is non-dissipative.

For those of you who don't have a copy of Reflections 3 I'm quoting below the pertinent sections from the new
edition:

"Sec 19.11 The Maximum Power-Transfer Theorem

"Before continuing it may be helpful in appreciating the conjugate match to remind ourselves of the meaning
of the Maximum Power-Transfer Theorem, and its relation to conjugate matching, as stated by Everitt:

The maximum power will be absorbed by one network from another joined to it at two terminals, when the
impedance of the receiving network is varied, if the impedances looking into the two networks are conjugates
of each other.

A corollary of this theorem is that there is a conjugate match if the delivery of power decreases when the
receiving impedance (the load) is either increased or decreased.

It should be understood that this corollary is practiced whenever an RF power amplifier loading is being
adjusted for delivery of all available power at any given drive level. This means that the amplifier is power
limited at that drive level, and that when conjugately matched to its load, all the power available at that drive
level is delivered to the load.

"Sec 19.14 Additional Experimental Data

"The source resistance data reported in Secs 19.8 and 19.9 were obtained using the load variation method
with resistive loads. Note that of the six measurements of output source resistance reported in Table 19.1, the
average value of the resistance is 50.3 ohms obtained with the reference load resistance of 51.2 ohms,
exhibiting an error of only 1.8 percent. However, various critics assert that proof of a conjugate match
between the source and load requires the load to contain reactance. Accordingly, the experimental data
reported below were obtained using both the load variation method and an indirect method for determining
the source impedance of the RF power amplifier, with a resistive load to obtain a reference source resistance
and a complex load to determine the complex source impedance that is then proven to be the conjugate of
the complex load.
We’ll now examine the experimental data that resulted from measurements performed subsequent to those
reported in Secs 19.8 and 19.9, new data that provides additional evidence that a conjugate match exists at
reported in Secs 19.8 and 19.9, new data that provides additional evidence that a conjugate match exists at
the output terminals of an RF power amplifier when all of its available power is delivered into its load, however
complex the load impedance. According to the definition of the conjugate match as explained in Sec 19.1,
Axioms 1 and 2, if this condition prevails there is a conjugate match. In addition, the data presented below
also provides further evidence that the output source resistance of the RF amplifier is non-dissipative. The
following steps describe the experimental procedure I employed and the results obtained:

1. Using a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver as the RF source, the tuning and loading of the pi-network are
adjusted to deliver all the available power into a 50 + j0-ohm load with the grid drive adjusted to deliver the
maximum of 100 watts at 4 MHz, thus establishing the area of the RF power window at the input of the pi-
network, resistance RLP at the plate, and the slope of the load line. The output source resistance of the
amplifier in this condition will later be shown to be 50 ohms. In this condition the DC plate voltage is 800 v and
plate current is 260 ma. DC input power is therefore 800 v x 0.26 a = 208 w. Readings on the Bird 43
wattmeter indicate 100 watts forward and zero watts reflected. (100 watts is the maximum RF output power
available at this drive level.) From here on the grid drive is left undisturbed, and the pi-network controls are
left undisturbed until Step 10.

2. The amplifier is now powered down and the load resistance RL is measured across the input terminals of
the resonant pi-network tank circuit (from plate to ground) with an HP-4815 Vector Impedance Meter. The
resistance is found to be approximately 1400 ohms. Because the amplifier was adjusted to deliver the
maximum available power of 100 watts prior to the resistance measurement, the averaged resistance RLp
looking into the plate (upstream from the network terminals) is also approximately 1400 ohms. Accordingly, a
non-reactive 1400-ohm resistor is now connected across the input terminals of the pi-network tank circuit and
source resistance Ros is measured looking rearward into the output terminals of the network. Resistance Ros
was found to be 50 ohms.

3. Three 50-ohm dummy loads (a 1500w Bird and two Heathkit Cantennas) are now connected in parallel to
provide a purely resistive load of 16.67 ohms, and used to terminate a coax of 13.5° length at 4 MHz.

4. The impedance Zin appearing at the input of the 13.5° length of coax at 4 MHz terminated by the 16.67-
ohm resistor of Step 3 is measured with the Vector Impedance Meter, and found to be 20 ohms at angle+26°.
Converting from polar to rectangular notation, Zin = 17.98 + j8.77 ohms. (Zin = Zload from the earlier
paragraphs.) This impedance is used in Steps 5 and 6 to provide the alternate load impedance in the load-
variation method for determining the complex output impedance of the amplifier, and for proving that the
conjugate match exists.

5. With respect to 50 ohms, Zin from Step 4 yields a 2.88:1 mismatch and a voltage reflection coefficient rho
= 0.484. Therefore, power reflection coefficient rho^2 = 0.235, transmission coefficient (1 – rho^2) = 0.766,
and forward power increase factor 1/(1 – rho^2) = 1//0.766 = 1.306.

6. Leaving pi-network and drive level adjustments undisturbed, the 50-ohm load is now replaced with the coax
terminated with the 16.67-ohm load from Step 4, thus changing the load impedance from 50 + j0 ohms to
17.98 + j8.77 ohms, the input impedance Zin of the coax.

7. Due to the 2.88:1 mismatch at the load, neglecting network losses and the small change in plate current
resulting from the mismatch, approximately the same mismatch appears between RLp and ZL at the input of
the pi-network. Consequently, the change in load impedance changed the network input resistance RL from
1400 ohms to complex ZL ~ 800 – j1000 ohms, measured with the Vector Impedance Meter using the method
described in Step 2. To verify the impedance measurement of ZL the phase delay of the network was
measured using an HP-8405 Vector Voltmeter and found to be 127°. Using this value of phase delay the input
impedance ZL was calculated using two different methods; one yielding 792 – j1003 ohms, the other yielding
794.6 – j961.3 ohms, thus verifying the accuracy of the measurement. However, although grid voltage EC,
grid drive EG, are left unchanged, resistance RLp of approximately 1400 ohms at the plate has changed
somewhat due to the small changes in plate voltage and plate current due to the change in the load, leaving a
mismatch between RLp and ZL at the input of the pi-network. As stated above, this value of ZL yields the
substantially the same mismatch to plate resistance RLp as that between the output impedance of the pi-
network and the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load, i.e., 2.88:1. This mismatch at the network input results in less power
delivered into the network, and thus to the load, a decrease in the area of the RF window at the network input,
and a change in the slope of the loadline. (It must be remembered that the input and output mismatches
contribute only to mismatch loss, which does not result in power delivered and then lost somewhere in
dissipation. As we will see in Step 8, the mismatch at the input of the pi-network results only in a reduced
delivery of source power proportional to the degree of mismatch.)

8. Readings on a Bird 43 power meter now indicate 95w forward and 20w reflected, meaning only 75 watts are
now delivered by the source and absorbed in the mismatched load. The 20w reflected power remains in the
coax, and adds to the 75 watts delivered by the source to establish the total forward power of 95w.

9. We now compare the measured power delivered with the calculated power, using the power transmission
coefficient, 1 – rho^2. The calculated power delivered is: 100w x (1 – rho^2) = 76.6w, compared to the 75w
indicated by the Bird wattmeter. However, because the new load impedance is less than the original 50 ohms,
and also reactive, the amplifier is now overloaded and the pi-network is detuned from resonance.
Consequently, the plate current has increased from 260 to 290 ma, plate voltage has dropped to 760 v, and
Consequently, the plate current has increased from 260 to 290 ma, plate voltage has dropped to 760 v, and

DC input power has increased from 208 w to 220.4 w.

10. With the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load still connected, the pi-network loading and tuning are now re-adjusted to
again deliver all available power with drive level setting still left undisturbed. The readjustment of the plate
tuning capacitor has increased the capacitive reactance in the pi-network by –8.77 ohms, canceling the +8.77
ohms of inductive reactance in the load, returning the system to resonance. The readjustment of the loading
control capacitor has decreased the output capacitive reactance, thus reducing the output resistance from 50
to 17.98 ohms. Thus the network readjustments have decreased the output impedance from 50 + j0 to 17.98
– j 8.77 ohms, the conjugate of the load impedance, 17.98 + j8.77 ohms. The readjustments have also
returned the network input impedance ZL to 1400 + j0 ohms (again equal to RLp), have returned the original
area of the RF window at the network input, and have returned the slope of the loadline to its original value.
For verification of the 1400-ohm network input resistance after the readjustment, ZL was again measured
using the method described in Step 2, and found it to have returned to 1400 + j0 ohms.

11. Bird 43 power meter readings following the readjustment procedure now indicate 130w forward and 29.5w
reflected, indicating 100.5w delivered to the mismatched load.

12. For comparison, the calculated power values are: Forward power = 100 x 1.306 = 130.6w, reflected power
= 30.6w, and delivered power = 130.6w – 30.6w = 100w showing substantial agreement with the measured
values. (1.306 is the forward power increase factor determined in Step 5.) Plate current has returned to its
original value, 260 ma, and likewise, plate voltage has also returned to the original value, 800 v.
Consequently, the DC input power has also returned to its original value, 208 w.

13. It is thus evident that the amplifier has returned to delivering the original power, 100 watts into the
previously mismatched complex-impedance load, now conjugately matched, the same as when it was
delivering 100 watts into the 50-ohm non-reactive load. But the reflected power, 30.6 watts, remains in the
coax, adding to the 100 watts delivered by the amplifier to establish the 130.6 watts of forward power, proving
that it does not enter the amplifier to dissipate and heat the network or the tube.

It must be kept in mind that impedance Zin appearing at the input of the 13° line connecting the 16.7-ohm
termination to the output of the amplifier is the result of reflected waves of both voltage and current, and thus
reflected power is returning to the input of the line, and becomes incident on the output of the amplifier.
The significance of these measurement data is that for the amplifier to deliver all of its available power (100w)
into the mismatched load impedance Zin = 17.98 + j8.77 ohms, the readjustment of the tuning and loading of
the pi-network simply changed the output impedance of the network from 50 + j0 ohms to 17.98 – j8.77
ohms, the conjugate of the load impedance, thus matching the output impedance of the network to the input
impedance of the coax. Consequently, there is a conjugate match between the output of the transceiver and
its complex load. QED. The readjustments of the pi-network simply changed its impedance transformation
ratio from 50:1400 to (17.98 – j8.77):1400, returning the input resistance RL of the pi-network to 1400 ohms,
the value of RLp. Thus the plates of the amplifier tubes are unaware of the change in external load
impedance.

14. We’ll now make an additional indirect measurement of Ros. Leaving adjustments undisturbed from the
conditions in Step 10, with the amplifier powered down we again connect a 1400-ohm non-reactive resistor
across the input terminals of the pi-network tank circuit and measure impedance Zos looking rearward into
the output terminals of the network. The impedance was found to be Zos = 18 – j8 ohms.

From a practical viewpoint, measured impedance Zos = 18 – j8 ohms is the conjugate of load impedance
Zload = 17.98 + j8.77, proving that the amplifier is conjugately matched to the load, and also proving the
validity of the indirect method in determining that the source impedance of the amplifier is the conjugate of
the load impedance when all available power is being delivered to the load.
Thus the data obtained in performing Steps 1 through 14 above proves the following four conditions to be
true:

No reflected power incident on the output of the amplifier is absorbed or dissipated in the amplifier, because:

1. The total DC input power is the same whether the amplifier is loaded to match the resistive Zo load of 50 +
j0 ohms, with no reflected power, or to match the complex load of 17.98 – j8.77 ohms with 30.6 watts of
reflected power, while 100 w is delivered to either the Z0 load or the re-matched complex load.

2. All the 100 watts of power delivered by the transmitter is absorbed in both the Zo load and the re-matched
complex load cases, with the same DC input power in both cases.

3. All the 30 watts of reflected power has been shown to add to the source power, establishing the total 130
watts of forward power in the case involving the re-matched complex load.

4. All the reflected power is added to the source power by re-reflection from the non-dissipative output source
resistance ROS of the amplifier. Had the output source resistance of the amplifier been dissipative the
reflected power would have been dissipated there into heat, instead of being re-reflected back into the line
and adding to the source power. In addition, the Bird 43 power meter would have indicated 75 watts of

forward power, not 95. This proves that reflected power incident on the output of the amplifier does not cause
heating of the tube.

It should also be noted, an accepted alternative to the load-variation method for measuring the output
impedance of a source of RF power is the indirect method demonstrated above. As performed during the
measurements described above, the procedure for this method is to first make the necessary loading
adjustments of the output network to ensure that all of the available power is being delivered to the load.
Next, the input impedance of the load is measured. It then follows that, as proven above, the source
impedance is the conjugate of the input impedance measured at the input of the load, because when all
available power is being delivered to the load, this condition conforms to the Conjugate Matching and the
Maximum Power-transfer Theorems.
Additionally, I previously performed this same measurement procedure using a HeathKit HW-100 transceiver,
using several different lengths of coax between the 16.7-ohm load and the output of the transceiver in each of
several measurements. The different lengths of coax provided different complex load impedances for the
transceiver during each measurement. The same performance as described above resulted with each different
load impedance, providing further evidence that a conjugate match exists when the amplifier is delivering all
of its available power into its load. These results also prove that the single test with the Kenwood transceiver
is not simply a coincidence.

Sec 19.15 Summary

More recent experimental evidence has been presented since that of Secs 19.8 and 19.9, adding further proof
that a conjugate match can exist when the source is an RF power amplifier, and that the output source
resistance of the amplifier is non-dissipative. It was also shown that RLp looking toward the plate from the
network input equals resistance RL appearing at the input of the pi-network when a conjugate match is
obtained, while contrary to Bruene’s claim, there is no requirement that RL = RS to obtain a conjugate match,
thus proving Bruene’s definition of the conjugate match appearing in his November 1991 QST article 142
invalid."

One last note: It is well known that a perfect conjugate match cannot occur in both forward and reverse
directions simultaneously on real lines that have attenuation. However, when the output network adjusted to
deliver all the available power to the load in the forward direction, the conjugate match does occur in the
forward direction. I have been challenged on this point, so consequently I developed a mathematical proof
using MathCad, which is reported in detail in the 3rd edition of Reflections, now available from CQ Publishing. I
hope you have the opportunity to review it.

Walt, W2DU

PS--Forgot to mention that Tom (JI) and I worked together on measuring RF amps during the confrontation
with Warren Bruene concerning the ability of the RF amp to sustain a conjugate match between the output and
its load. Our data agree!!!

K9AAN 09-11-2010, 12:39 AM

First, let me point out that photons cannot travel through wire. Therefore, only electric and magnetic fields
need be considered when talking about transmission lines.

At the risk of being ridiculed let me point out one place where I believe modern physics is in error. That is, RF
energy, travelling in free space, is NOT composed of photons. Why: Photons are bundles of light. The energy
of light is calculated differently than the energy in an RF wave. Light can be both particle and wave. RF is wave
only.

That light waves and RF waves behave the same does not make them the same. All waves behave the same
irrespective of how they are generated or their medium of propagation or lack there of.

It is my opinion that photons exist only when light behaves as a particle. When light behaves as a wave, it is a
wave and not a photon.

K9AAN 09-11-2010, 12:46 AM

OK. Let me get this straight.

According to the original article [extremely well written, I may add, and admired], if we send the 100 watts
down the transmission line and 60 watts are reflected, then 160 watts become the new forward power.

BUT, the antenna reflects 60/100 of the forward power back. If the new forward power is now 160 watts, then
the antenna now reflects 96 watts back.
The 96 watts are now added to the forward power to make 196 watts of which about 118 watts are reflected.
The 118 watts are now added to the forward power to make 218 watts of forward power...

Or did I miss something?

K9FON 09-11-2010, 12:58 AM

lifes too short to fuss with conjugate matches, swrs, tuners and such. i just operate and have fun!:D

AC0FP 09-11-2010, 03:04 AM

First, let me point out that photons cannot travel through wire. Therefore, only electric and magnetic fields
need be considered when talking about transmission lines.

At the risk of being ridiculed let me point out one place where I believe modern physics is in error. That is, RF
energy, travelling in free space, is NOT composed of photons. Why: Photons are bundles of light. The energy
of light is calculated differently than the energy in an RF wave. Light can be both particle and wave. RF is wave
only.

That light waves and RF waves behave the same does not make them the same. All waves behave the same
irrespective of how they are generated or their medium of propagation or lack there of.

It is my opinion that photons exist only when light behaves as a particle. When light behaves as a wave, it is a
wave and not a photon.

This is the way I've always seen things. Rf is a wave and photon's, well their kind of strange because they are
mixture!

73,

fp

WR9H 09-11-2010, 03:20 AM

Hello Guys,

RF and light BOTH have wave and photon (particle) characteristics and are really the same type of radiation.
As the frequency of an RF emission is increased it behaves more like a particle (photon).

This can be very confusing to grasp and it does help to go through a good physics textbook's electromagnetic
emission chapter(s) to help with understanding.

Ultimately radio waves are low frequency light and light is very, very, very high frequency radio!!

73
Herb/WR9H

VA3CQC 09-11-2010, 03:39 AM

OK. Let me get this straight.

According to the original article... The 96 watts are now added to the forward power to make 196 watts of
which about 118 watts are reflected. The 118 watts are now added to the forward power to make 218 watts of
forward power...

Funny.

He's saying that it's a mathematical proof: the creation of a Conjugate Match doesn't in itself reduce the
efficiency of your transmitter. SWR or no, it still delivers 100% power into the load, as long as a match exists
(and is used, of course. lol @ 220w consumed / 75w produced under adverse condx).

VK2TIL 09-11-2010, 09:23 AM

Apropos 'UAQ's post (#29).

Whilst the "downstream" impedance does not affect what happens "upstream", some kinds of measurements
require that the entire system, from generator to load (DUT) be of a single Zo.

If accurate vector measurements are to be taken, a single constant Zo, from signal-generator to DUT, is
mandatory; for example, W7ZOI discusses return-loss bridges (in a manner that even I can understand) in
"Introduction To RF Design" and shows that a Zo source is required for proper operation.

Since a directional coupler is, essentially, a bridge, it seems to me that the same principles apply.

SWR is a scalar measurement; it tells us a little, but not all, about the load.

Measurements via a bridge or a directional coupler, if both magnitude & phase can be quantified, tell us much
more.

KA5S 09-11-2010, 10:27 AM

First, let me point out that photons cannot travel through wire. Therefore, only electric and magnetic fields
need be considered when talking about transmission lines.

At the risk of being ridiculed let me point out one place where I believe modern physics is in error. That is, RF
energy, travelling in free space, is NOT composed of photons. Why: Photons are bundles of light. The energy
of light is calculated differently than the energy in an RF wave. Light can be both particle and wave. RF is wave
only.

That light waves and RF waves behave the same does not make them the same. All waves behave the same
irrespective of how they are generated or their medium of propagation or lack there of.
...

Electrons travel -- slowly (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html#c2) -- through

wire. Photons (i.e. radio waves) don't; they are launched onto the transmission line. TL or space; makes no
difference.

Cortland
KA5S

KA5S 09-11-2010, 10:32 AM

Dupe -- deleted. Off to thr swap meet!

Cortland
KA5S

W5DXP 09-11-2010, 03:15 PM

That light waves and RF waves behave the same does not make them the same.

You seem to be talking about visible light waves. When a physicist talks about light waves in general, he is
talking about the entire spectrum of EM waves from the lowest frequency to the highest frequency. RF waves
are part of the spectrum of invisible light. The energy in each RF photon is easy to calculate:

Photon Energy = h*f

where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.

h = 6.626x10^-34 joules/sec.

So the energy in an individual RF photon at 10.125 MHz would be:

10.125 MHz Photon Energy = 6.708825x10^-27 joules

At 100 watts (joules/second) on 10.125 MHz, I am radiating approximately

149,057,398,300,000,000,000,000,000 photons per second.

The only difference in 10.125^6 Hz RF and 10.125^15 Hz visible light is frequency.

W5DXP 09-11-2010, 03:37 PM

Or did I miss something?
You are doing it the hard way. If 60 watts out of every 100 watts is reflected at the load (antenna) then the

power reflection coefficient is:

rho^2 = 60/100 = 0.6

The voltage reflection coefficient is:

rho = SQRT(0.6) = 0.7746

Power transmission coefficient = 1-rho^2 = 0.4

In order to get 100 watts (source power) into the load, steady-state forward power is:

Pfor = 100w/(1-rho^2) = 100w/0.4 = 250 watts

Pref = 250(0.6) = 150 watts

SWR = (1 + rho)/(1-rho) = 1.7746/0.2254 = 7.87:1

K9AAN 09-11-2010, 05:07 PM

I know what "physicists think". What I am saying is that in my opinion, they are wrong. They have been wrong
about things before, you know.

It has been proven that photons can not exist as a wave nor can a wave exist as a photon. Light is either a
particle(photon) or a wave or even possibly a third form. But it cannot be both wave and particle at the same
time.

When it is a photon, it can not exhibit wave characteristics. When it is a wave, it can not exhibit particle
characteristics.

Photons can not travel down a wire. As a matter of fact, even electrons don't travel very far. It's the electric
and magnetic fields that travel.

K9AAN 09-11-2010, 05:21 PM

You are doing it the hard way. If 60 watts out of every 100 watts is reflected at the load (antenna) then the
power reflection coefficient is:

rho^2 = 60/100 = 0.6

The voltage reflection coefficient is:

rho = SQRT(0.6) = 0.7746

Power transmission coefficient = 1-rho^2 = 0.4

In order to get 100 watts (source power) into the load, steady-state forward power is:

Pfor = 100w/(1-rho^2) = 100w/0.4 = 250 watts

Pref = 250(0.6) = 150 watts

SWR = (1 + rho)/(1-rho) = 1.7746/0.2254 = 7.87:1

I was just keeping it simple and not at all concerned with calculating the SWR. It's just that according to the
article, if there is a 60% power reflection at the antenna then there has to be a 60% power reflection at the
tuner also but in opposite phase because of the complex conjugate.

But I did err. Since there is now a power coefficient at the tuner then:

100 watts is sent out by the xmitter. 60 watts (assume in phase with the original forward power) is reflected
by the antenna. That 60 watts travels back to the tuner. It reflects 60% of that (because it has the same
power reflection coeficient) and lets 24 watts back into the xmitter to be converted to heat. So 60% of 60
watts goes back to the antenna or 36 watts.

100 watts is sent out by the xmitter which now has an additional 36 watts out of phase. So there is 136 going
to the antenna. The antenna reflects 60% of that so about 82 watts goes back. And 40 % of the 82 watts is
passed on to the xmitter to be converted to heat and 60% or about 50 watts reflected.
passed on to the xmitter to be converted to heat and 60% or about 50 watts reflected.

Now we have 150 watts going to the antenna and, of that, about 60% or 90 watts is reflected.

According to that scenario eventually the power will increase until we will burn out the final amplifier.

K9AAN 09-11-2010, 05:52 PM

Just remembered that I forgot something. Happens as we get older.

We know that photons are created when an electron drops from an atomic orbit of high energy to an orbit of
low energy. The energy difference between the two orbits goes into the photon and that determines the
frequency/wavelength/color of the photon.

We know that electromagnetic waves are created by the acceleration of electrons without the use of an atomic
nucleus or it's orbits.

Photons and EM waves are created by two different mechanisms. Their energies are measured two different
ways. Therefore photons and EM waves are two different things.

Can a photon transform into an EM wave and vice-versa? Evidently, that is so but are certain energy levels
necessary? Are there certain requirements necessary for the transform?

Or, perhaps photons only mimic waves under certain conditions. There is the deBroglie effect to consider.

K9ASE 09-11-2010, 06:41 PM

Great article! where can I get a print copy to send to my brother an IT guy who has been asking me about
radio.:)

W2DU 09-11-2010, 09:51 PM

For K9AAN:

Although the power reflection coefficient at the antenna is 0.6 in the example above, there is no reason to
assume the same power reflection coefficient at the tuner. In a lossless tuner, the re-reflection coefficient at
the tuner is 1.0 when adjusted to obtain the conjugate match, with no reflected power reaching the source.

Walt, W2DU

K9AAN 09-12-2010, 01:35 AM

IF there is a mis-match at the antenna which has a certain complex formula and a reflection coefficient, then
the conjugate at the tuner must also have the same coefficient but with an opposite phase shift.

Let us say that the complex formula at the antenna is

47 - j34 indicating that the antenna is capacitive, thus too short.

Then the tuner should have 47 + j34 to compensate.

It is conceivable that another antenna has a complex formula of 47 + j34 indicating that the antenna is
inductive, thus too long.

Then the tuner should have 46 - j34 to compensate.

If 47 + j34 causes part of the signal to reflect then 47 - j34 must also cause part of the signal to reflect with
the same reflection coefficient.

If there is a reflection at the antenna because the antenna doesn't match the coax then there has to be a
reflection at the tuner because the tuner doesn't match the coax.

As Eric said, ANY discontinuity, i.e. mismatch, no matter where it is, will cause a reflection. Even if it's at the
tuner.

K9AAN 09-12-2010, 01:39 AM

Ah yes. Lossless means only that there is no real resistance. It does not mean that there is no reactance.
Ah yes. Lossless means only that there is no real resistance. It does not mean that there is no reactance.

A discontinuity can be lossless and still reflect power because of the reactance.

Remember the complex formula is REAL + j IMAGINARY.

A complex formula of 0 + j456 is entirely feasible and realizable and is a reflective discontinuity.

W2DU 09-12-2010, 02:02 AM

ANN: Sorry to disagree, but your assertion that the reflection coefficient at a mismatched load will have the
same reflection coefficient at the tuner is just plain wrong. A correctly tuned antenna tuner totally re-reflects
the waves reflected from the mismatched load--it has a reflection coefficient of 1.0, period. This is the reason
the total forward power delivered by the tuner is 1/(1 - rho^2) times the source power, which for a 3:1
mismatch for example, rho = 0.5, thus the foward power in this case is 1/0.75 = 1.333 times the power
delivered by the source. This condition would be impossible if the reflection coefficient at the tuner is other
that 1.0.

Another point you made earlier, that power not re-reflected by the tuner winds up as heat in the source, is
also not true, except in the case of classical generators discussed in engineering text books, where the
internal resistance is dissipative. When the source is a tube amp with a pi-network output coupling, the source
resistance is non-dissipative, and therefore cannot transfer reflected power into heat. Any reflected power
incident on the output of the amp manifests itself as a change in line input impedance, resulting only in a
reduction in power delivered by the source due to the mismatch between the source resistance and line-input
impedance.

Sorry to disagree, but the statements above are facts.

Walt, W2DU

PS--If you question my statement above concerning the non-dissipative condition of the RF amp, I invite you
to review my previous post in this thread, in which I demonstrated with experimental proof that the source
resistance of the amp is non-dissipative.

In addition, please review Cecil's math statement concerning the total forward power developed by the re-
reflection at the tuner, that total power forward = 1/(1 - rho^2) times the source power, the same equation I
presented above. This verifies that the numbers you presented concerning the power incident on the load are
wrong.

KA5S 09-12-2010, 02:44 AM

You are doing it the hard way. ...

For a class C amplifier we want to efficiently transfer very short pulses from the tube to the tank -- but
efficiently extract CW RF over a much longer time. Should be a duty-cycle factor for efficiency somewhere.
Looks to me we're talking apples and pineapples.

Cortland
KA5S

K9AAN 09-12-2010, 01:54 PM

For a class C amplifier we want to efficiently transfer very short pulses from the tube to the tank -- but
efficiently extract CW RF over a much longer time. Should be a duty-cycle factor for efficiency somewhere.
Looks to me we're talking apples and pineapples.

Cortland
KA5S

A Class C amplifier does indeed produce very short pulses. However, in RF amplifiers, the
cathode/collector/drain of the amplifier is connected to a parallel tank circuit. A parallel tank circuit operates
somewhat like a tuning fork. When a tuning fork is struck, it produces a sinusoidal tone for quite some time
but eventually dies off.

When a tank circuit is pulsed, it too produces a sinusoidal "tone" (at its resonant frequency) for quite some
time that eventually dies off. However if the tank circuit is pulsed once per cycle, the "tone" continues.
Since the tank circuit is in series with the output device and the power supply, transferring the pulse to the
tank is automatic and, really, child's play.

The output "tone" from the tank is then transferred to the output circuit (usually a pi-network) through a
capacitor.

W5DXP 09-12-2010, 02:02 PM

When it is a photon, it can not exhibit wave characteristics.

On the contrary, a single photon can pass through two slits and interfere with itself on the other side. That's a
characteristic of a wave even though it is a single photon. Even single photons exhibit the wave/particle
duality. EM fields consist of photons. It is the choice of detector built by humans that collapses the probability
function into a particle or a wave and it can be either - your choice.

It's the electric and magnetic fields that travel.

The EM wave surrounding the wire consists of a cloud of quantized photons progressing from free electron
carrier to free electron carrier at the speed of light in the medium.

Perhaps a quote from Feynman would help:

"So now, I present to you the three basic actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise:

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.

-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.
-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon."

When Feynman says "light", he is including radio frequencies.

W5DXP 09-12-2010, 02:13 PM

Photons and EM waves are created by two different mechanisms.

No, there are two mechanisms for generating photons and EM fields/waves. But photons and EM fields/waves
are the same quantized phenomena and are both generated by the two mechanisms.

1. An atomic orbital change generates photons/fields at fixed quantized energy levels, i.e. at fixed
frequencies. A laser is an example.

2. A free electron does NOT change atomic orbits and mimics the frequency of the applied energy.
Conductors, like copper and aluminum, contain free electrons. A ham antenna is an example.

W8JI 09-12-2010, 02:20 PM

For a class C amplifier we want to efficiently transfer very short pulses from the tube to the tank -- but
efficiently extract CW RF over a much longer time. Should be a duty-cycle factor for efficiency somewhere.
Looks to me we're talking apples and pineapples.

Cortland
KA5S

http://www.w8ji.com/Vacuum_tube_amps.htm

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-12-2010, 03:02 PM

IF there is a mis-match at the antenna which has a certain complex formula and a reflection coefficient, then
the conjugate at the tuner must also have the same coefficient but with an opposite phase shift.

There is a grain of truth there. It must have the same physical reflection coefficient and opposite sign. But, as
Walt says, it has a virtual reflection coefficient of 1.0 looking back from the load. For the sake of simplicity,
let's replace the tuner with a simple Z0-match. Here's a lossless example:
100w

source---50 ohm coax---+---1/2WL 300 ohm twinlead---50 ohm load

The voltage reflection coefficient at the load is -0.7143. The power reflection coefficient at the load is 0.51.
The forward power is 204 watts and the reflected power is 104 watts.

The physical power reflection coefficient at point '+' is 0.51, same as at the load. The virtual power reflection
coefficient at point '+' is zero looking from the source and 1.0 looking back from the load.

What most people don't understand is that there are two phenomena for redistributing energy back toward the
load from the Z0-match at point '+'. One is an ordinary reflection from a physical impedance discontinuity
which is what you are talking about above.

The second mechanism is associated with interference. This mechanism is described in Reflections II under -
"Sec 4.3 Reflection Mechanics of Stub Matching". Here's the URL:

http://w2du.com/Chapter04.pdf

In my above Z0-matched example, 0.51 of the 104 watts of reflected power (53w) is re-reflected by the
physical impedance discontinuity. What happens to the other 51 watts of reflected power that is not re-
reflected by the physical impedance discontinuity? As Walt describes in Chapter 4, it undergoes destructive
interference with a complimentary part of the source wave. The destructive interference between 51 watts of
the reflected power wave and 51 watts of the source wave redistributes all of the reflected power back toward
the load.

Apparently, in order to try to simplify things for his readers, Walt lumps both physical re-reflection and
interference effects into a single virtual power reflection coefficient of 1.0 at point '+' looking back from the
load. But it is readily apparent from section 4.3 in Reflections II that Walt understands that second step roll
played by interference effects. He says in Chapter 4: "The destructive interference causes mutual cancellation
of two complementary reflected waves generated by two complementary mismatches".

In a paper I wrote for Worldradio, I explained the two-step process of re-reflection/interference at a Z0-match
which also applies to a tuner. That paper is reproduced at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

What we are discussing is the same phenomena involved in the 1/4WL thin-film coating on non-reflective glass
which is covered in the references.

KD0CAC 09-12-2010, 03:17 PM

Just a simple question the conservation law , as I understand it .
If we can not create / or destroy .
How does a 100 watts onto an RF system , feedline , antenna etc become more than a 100 watts ?
If we are talking about the reflected power added to the next moment of power [ seems like time is being left
out ] , the current = now transmission is mixing with the reflected , past transmission " time " , then become
noise on the now signal ?
I hope that can be a coherent idea to some , maybe wrong idea , just trying to calibrate / tune the mind ?
This is one of the biggest parts of Ham Radio that I like , the learning of applied science to communication .

KA5S 09-12-2010, 03:28 PM

http://www.w8ji.com/Vacuum_tube_amps.htm

73 Tom

Thanks, Tom! The off time is important.

Cortland
KA5S

W5DXP 09-12-2010, 04:35 PM

Just a simple question the conservation law , as I understand it . If we can not create / or destroy. How does a
100 watts onto an RF system , feedline , antenna etc become more than a 100 watts?

There is no conservation of power law. There is a conservation of energy law. Joules are conserved - watts
There is no conservation of power law. There is a conservation of energy law. Joules are conserved - watts
are not conserved. The forward power can be greater than the source power because, during the key-down
transient state, enough joules were loaded and stored in the transmission line (and not delivered to the load)
to support the forward power and reflected power values.

Assume a one-second long lossless transmission line with an SWR of 5.87:1, i.e. a power reflection coefficient
of 0.5 at the load. Steady-state source power is 100 watts. Steady-state forward power is 200 watts. Steady-
state reflected power is 100 watts. In a lossless system:

Source power = load power = forward power minus reflected power

During steady-state, there are 300 joules of energy contained in the transmission line that have not been
delivered to the load. If you iterate the reflections on a second by second basis, you will see the total joules of
energy converging to 300 joules in the transmission line. RF joules cannot stand still so there are 300 total
joules/sec passing a point in the transmission line during steady-state. That does not violate the conservation
of energy principle.

Take a look at a plot of instantaneous power. Power is created and destroyed during every RF cycle.

W2DU 09-12-2010, 04:57 PM

Tom--Great job on your presentation of the detailed operation of the RF power amplifier!!!

And for K9ANN, please review the last paragraph of Eric's initial post in this thread.

Walt, W2DU

PS--Reflections 3 is now available at CQ Publications--see www.w2du.com for directions.

W2DU 09-12-2010, 05:27 PM

Here's a little additional info concerning the operation of an antenna tuner. In principle its operation is identical
to that of a single-stub impedance-matching device, except that the tuner is more flexible.

Along the transmission line with a mismatched load termination, the complex line impedance varies
continuously, with two points within each half wavelength where the real part (Re) of the impedance equals
the characteristic impedance, Zo, of the line. However, there is always reactance at these points, the value of
which is determined by the degree of mismatch at the load. When this reactance is cancelled by the opposite
reactance supplied by the stub, the standing wave on the line between the stub point and the source
disappears. However, the standing wave remains on the line between the stub and the load, and the total
forward power between the stub and the load increases by the factor 1/(1 - rho^2) times the source power.
But we already knew all this.

The difference (also the similarity) between the stub and tuner is that the tuner performs exactly the same
function as the stub, but allows the matching point to occur at any point along the line, whatever the line-
length may be, instead of at only the two points along each half-wavelength where Re = Zo, as required for
the stub.

In other words, the tuner is equivalent to a variable length stub placed at any point along the mismatched line.

I should add that the cancellation of the reactance at the two points on the line where the line resistance is Re
is only a small portion of the wave action that results in the impedance match. For the details of the wave
mechanics achieving the match can be found in Reflections, Chapter 23, which can be downloaded from my
web page at www.w2du.com.

Walt, W2DU

W2DU 09-12-2010, 09:16 PM

Again for K9ANN:

I erred when I suggested you review the last paragraph of Eric's initial post in this thread.

What I should have said is Eric's post #2 in this thread, dated 3-12-10. There is a big difference!!

Walt, W2DU
W2DU 09-13-2010, 02:35 AM

I need to obtain Eric's email address. Anyone have it? If so would you please email it to me at
walt@w2du.com.

Thanks, Walt, W2DU

KL7AJ 09-13-2010, 02:47 AM

I need to obtain Eric's email address. Anyone have it? If so would you please email it to me at
walt@w2du.com.

Thanks, Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt:

My email address is: kl7aj@arrl.net.

Sorry I haven't been in the conversation too much; I've been deep in the throes of the Opus. Just signed up
Jim Massara, N2EST, to to most of the illustrations for the tome! Jim illustrated my very first QST article back
in 1983, and it's only right that I recruit him for this project. As they say, "Dance with who brung ya."

By the way, I'd be most honored if you'd be interested in writing a sidebar for the Opus. Any topic of your
choice would be great!

How are sales of "Reflections III" going? I hope you make a killing on this revision!

73,

Eric

W2DU 09-13-2010, 03:04 AM

Thanks for the reply, Eric, I'll be composing an email tomorrow--it's bedyby time for me now.

However, to answer your question re Reflections 3, the 1st printing has sold out, and CQ will be shipping
copies of the 2nd printing by Sept 20. But no, I'm not making a killing on this revision--my take is only 50 free
copies of the 1st printing.

Walt

KC8VWM 09-13-2010, 04:03 AM

Hi Walt,

I am just popping in here to say I use your well designed products, appreciate your work and I enjoy reading
your well written publications. It would be a pleasure to meet you in person sometime.

Thank you.

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 01:18 PM

We may be saying the same thing. Here is my take without the use of complex variables...

A coaxial transmission line may be modeled with lumped components by an inductance in series as the center
conductor, to represent the inductance of the cable, and a capacitor in between the center conductor and
shield, to represent the capacitance between the two conductors. [BTW, this is, essentially, an LC low pass
filter.]
A tuner works to introduce reactance in the cable-antenna system that nullifies the reactance induced by the
non-resonant antenna. This is why, mathematically, we need to consider the complex conjugate. If there is
too much capacitance from an antenna that is too short, we introduce inductance at the tuner. If there is too
much inductance from an antenna that is too long, we introduce capacitance at the tuner.
The net effect of all the reactances in the tuner-cable-antenna system is, we hope, to null the reactances and
produce a “resistance” that is equal to the transmitter’s resistance for maximum power transfer.
By introducing inductance or capacitance or, usually, both to the tuner-cable-antenna system we change the
characteristics of the wave travelling down the transmission line. That is, we alter the phase relationship
between the voltage and current. The alteration made at the tuner compensates the alteration made at the
between the voltage and current. The alteration made at the tuner compensates the alteration made at the
antenna so that when the wave reaches the antenna, it is at the proper phase relationship with respect to the
antenna and all of the forward power is transmitted.
As we know, the impedance in a cable changes with its length. Back in the old days, engineers would use a
device called a Smith Chart to determine how long a cable had to be so its impedance would match that of the
antenna. Another way of looking at the tuner is that the tuner, by introducing series inductance and parallel
capacitance, makes the cable electrically longer or shorter so that the appropriate electrical cable length is
produced.
Since the cable impedance now, electrically, matches the antenna impedance, there is no reflected power, it is
all transmitted.
So why then can higher power be measured between the tuner and the antenna than that produced by the
transmitter? Probably because the altered phase angle between the voltage and current is not taken into
consideration. This is known as the Apparent Power in Electrical circles. Apparent Power is always higher than
Real Power. When power is measured by standard methods, it is Apparent Power that is measured not Real
Power.
If, there were no reactances in the transmitter-cable-antenna circuit, the Apparent Power and the Real Power
would be the same. However, with reactances we have phase shifting which creates Apparent Power and
misleading measurements.
Since all the power is transmitted, does this make the antenna as efficient a radiator of power as a properly
tuned antenna? No, but it helps. Once “tuned” by the antenna tuner, there is a total match of system
impedances but there is still that phase relationship between the voltage and current in the antenna. The more
out of phase (out of tune) the antenna is the more out of phase the electric and magnetic fields coming off the
antenna will be and that will effect the Apparent Power transmitted.

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 01:20 PM

As Albert Einstein, I believe, once said, "Everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler."

W5DXP 09-13-2010, 01:37 PM

So why then can higher power be measured between the tuner and the antenna than that produced by the
transmitter?

I explained that earlier. During the transient key-down state, exactly the amount of energy is stored in the
transmission line to support that higher power during steady-state. It is sometimes called circulating energy
and is energy that has not yet been delivered to the load. The circulating energy is delivered to the load
during the subsequent transient key-up state. Again, there is no conservation of power principle. There is a
conservation of energy principle. The total number of joules in the circulating energy is constant during
steady-state and is over and above the energy being delivered to the load. Mathematically, the circulating
energy can be considered to exist as vars, i.e. reactive power.

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 01:41 PM

Here are some of my critiques of Eric's article...

First, allow me to state my opinion that your writing is excellent. You have a very nice way with words and in
context too. As a former tech manual writer, I admire your style. But…

1. “For, in recent years, STANDING WAVES have come to be viewed as something to be avoided like the Ebola
virus. This, more than any other misconception, has resulted in the single greatest source of Amateur Radio
Stupidity Exchange (ARSE). For some inexplicable reason that will probably never be known, presumably
sentient, rational beings become the village idiots of the Petri dish when the term STANDING WAVE is uttered,
wringing their collective hands, palpitating in unison and hyperventilating in horror.”
As demonstrated by the Lecher Line, a standing wave is created by the phase combination of the forward
wave and the reflected wave. The alternating constructive and destructive interference is what causes the
voltage peaks and nulls. If there is no reflected wave, there is no standing wave. So, standing waves are to
be avoided. You say so, yourself in…
“Now this process of superimposing an East traveling wave and a West traveling wave on a single pair or
wires generates what is known as a STANDING WAVE.”
True, the SWR is an indication of what is going on just as a volt meter indicatess the voltage but is not the
voltage. But the volt meter does tell us when we have zero volts and so the SWR meter tells us when we have
zero reflected waves.

2. “Often I hear statements like “If you have a big mismatch, all that reflected power is going to come back
and burn up your transmitter!

Impossible. Absolutely impossible...at least in this world. And most likely in the next, as well. All that reflected
power, as we've clearly demonstrated, prevents the transmitter from generating the power in the first place!”
Hmmm. I recall that as a young teenaged novice back in the 1960’s I had vacuum tube equipment. I couldn’t
afford things like an SWR bridge so I would look through the holes in my transmitter’s cabinet at the final. I
would then tune the transmitter by adjusting the red glow from the tube’s plate for a minimum.
Also, power is not a vector quantity. It is a scalar quantity. Power is neither negative nor positive. Therefore
power can not be subtracted from power. Power can be removed from an object by conversion to heat or
some other form of energy. In that case, it is convenient to consider the power as a negative but only
because it is leaving. Just as currents leaving a node are considered to be negative. Power can be “added” to
a power but can never be subtracted.

3. A miner point. If we take the derivative of the (power out) divided by (power in) formula for a simple
circuit, we find that in order to get maximum power, the load resistance must be the complete opposite of
source resistance. Both the real part and the imaginary part of the load must be negatives of the source.
However, since it is not practical to use a negative resistance for an antenna, and if we did it would draw
infinite power, we have to use a positive resistance with a negated imaginary part for the load.

4. “The load impedance must have a real value of resistance less than infinity but greater than zero.” The
“real resistance” you refer to does not exist. You later refer to “radiation resistance” which is an imaginary
quantity used to make the equations come out right but it is not real. If there were real resistance, the power
would be dissipated in heat.

5. First you have the reader engrave: “ WHERE A TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTS, THE POWER GENERATED BY
ANY RADIO TRANSMITTER EQUALS THE FORWARD POWER MINUS THE REFLECTED POWER IN THE
TRANSMISSION LINE. ALWAYS.”

Then you say: “Now, remember what I had you engrave on the inside of your eyelids a while back?
Transmitted power is equal to forward power minus reflected power.” Again, power can not be subtracted.

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 01:43 PM

Again for K9ANN:

I erred when I suggested you review the last paragraph of Eric's initial post in this thread.

What I should have said is Eric's post #2 in this thread, dated 3-12-10. There is a big difference!!

Walt, W2DU

Walt, would you mind quoting the paragraph? I can't seem to find the relevant paragraph.

W8JI 09-13-2010, 01:58 PM

Walt, would you mind quoting the paragraph? I can't seem to find the relevant paragraph.

I looked back, and I can't find a relevant paragraph either.

As a matter of fact I strongly disagree with almost the entire content of the very first post! It's just not how
the PA stage works.

I measured well over a dozen PA's, and they all provided very near the highest efficiency when conjugately
matched. This included class C amplifiers, which were in the range of 80% efficiency while matched.

PA's certainly do not have to be conjugately matched to the load, and many or most are not, but if you want
peak efficiency and energy transfer they better be pretty close to conjugately matched at full power.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-13-2010, 03:52 PM

Also, power is not a vector quantity. It is a scalar quantity. Power is neither negative nor positive.

Spoken like a purist. :) Electrical Engineers have a different convention. We have a tool called the "power flow
vector" or "Poynting vector" with the units of watts/unit-area. The direction of the vector is the direction of
energy flow so if we have a transmission line with only two directions, we can consider one direction (toward
the load) to be positive and the other direction (toward the source) to be negative. The power-flow vector is
similar to Irradiance from the field of optics.

From The IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave
From The IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave
and giving magnitude and direction of power per unit-area propagating in the wave."

In Fields and Waves ..., by Ramo and Whinnery, we find that the power delivered to the load is the difference
between the forward Poynting vector and the reverse Poynting vector. They are treated as vectors in the text.

Pload = Pfor - Pref

In a coaxial transmission line, where the unit-area is a constant, it can be dropped from the Poynting vector
units resulting simply in WATTS of power.
------

Even in physics, destructive interference power subtracts from the total at one point and adds to the total at
another point as an equal magnitude of constructive interference. Consider the irradiance equation from
Optics, by Hecht, where the irradiance, I, is also power/unit-area, the same units as a Poynting vector.
Interference power density is added and subtracted all the time in optical physics. Here is the Irradiance
equation used for adding constructive interference power density and subtracting destructive interference
power density.

Itot = I1 + I2 + 2*SQRT(I1*I2)*cos(phi)

phi is the phase angle between the electric fields of the two light waves. The last term in the equation is known
as the interference term and depending upon the cos(phi) term, can be either positive or negative, i.e.
constructive interference power density is additive while destructive interference power density is subtractive.
You will also find the same equation in Born and Wolf.

W5DXP 09-13-2010, 04:02 PM

I measured well over a dozen PA's, and they all provided very near the highest efficiency when conjugately
matched. This included class C amplifiers, which were in the range of 80% efficiency while matched.

The conjugate matching theorem is part of the body of linear mathematics. What does it mean mathematically
to say a non-linear Class-C amp is conjugately matched? I believe that Walt has defined a filtered V/I ratio as
the linear source impedance of a Class-C amp.

W2DU 09-13-2010, 04:12 PM

For K9ANN, the quote of Eric's I referred to was to provide validity to my contradiction to some of your
statements, with which I totally disagree. Now Eric's quote:

"Well, I suppose I could go on and on about this absolutely intriguing subject, but instead I'll refer you to two
pieces of required reading:

“My Feedline Tunes My Antenna,” By Byron Goodman, W1DX (SK). Originally published in QST in 1956, it has
been reprinted several times since. A genuine classic, and a fine example of clear analytical thinking...a rarity
in ham radio today.

“Reflections” by Walt Maxwell, W2DU. This is the most eloquent and detailed work on the subject ever written.
Most of the material in this EPILOGUE chapter was stolen, not in prose, but in principle, from Walt's writings.
This originally appeared in a series of QST articles in the 1970s, but has been consolidated in a couple of
excellent books, Reflections and Reflections II. I understand there's a Reflections III coming out soon."

The only portion of Eric's writing that I consider incorrect is where he asserts that when a transmitter (source)
is adjusted to achieve a conjugate match to its load, half the power is lost in the internal resistance of the
source, allowing only half of the available power to be delivered to the load. This portion of Eric's writing is
incorrect, and I am in touch with him concerning it.

However, now referring to your most recent post, in which you appear to disagree with other points in Eric's
writing, I respectfully disagree with your criticisms. I'll reply to each of my criticisms after I've made a more
careful review of your post.

Walt, W2DU

W2DU 09-13-2010, 06:55 PM

For K9ANN:

The following are my criticisms of your most recent post on this thread:
Your #1 comment concerning standing waves. In my opinion you have merely restated the obvious. I do not
see your comment on the subject as a criticism of Eric's writing. What is your point?

Your #2 comment: I quote, "2. “Often I hear statements like “If you have a big mismatch, all that reflected
power is going to come back and burn up your transmitter!"

Impossible. Absolutely impossible...at least in this world. And most likely in the next, as well. All that reflected
power, as we've clearly demonstrated, prevents the transmitter from generating the power in the first place!”

Of course it's impossible. But you are jumping the gun here in criticising Eric for the statement. That was not
Eric's statement--it is a statement made repeatedly during the entire last five decades, by hordes of hams
who were totally ignorant of the subject. That statement is one of the main reasons for my writings on the
subject in the 1970's in an attempt to educate those who didn't understand, writings that were published in
seven articles in QST.

And where have you demonstrated that reflected power prevents the transmitter from generating the power in
the first place? This I'd like to see!

You state that power cannot be subtracted from power. Not true. A certain power, namely reflected power, is
subtracted from the forward power at a mismatched load terminating a source, leaving the difference in power
absorbed in the mismatched load. You can't just assert with any degree of correctness that absorbed power is
not the reflected power subtracted from forward power. Consequently, you are incorrect when you say that
power cannot be subtracted from power.

Your #3 comment:

You evidently believe that for delivery of all available power to a load, both the resistive and reactive
components of the source impedance must be negative. If you believe the resistive component must be
negative, you've been misled--tain't so. What is your source of info for that bit of misinformation? It is true,
that for a conjugate match to exist, the reactive components in the souce and load must be of the opposite
sign, but not the resistive components.

Incidentally, 'miner' is spelled 'minor'.

Your #4 comment, I quote:

"4. “The load impedance must have a real value of resistance less than infinity but greater than zero.” The
“real resistance” you refer to does not exist. You later refer to “radiation resistance” which is an imaginary
quantity used to make the equations come out right but it is not real. If there were real resistance, the power
would be dissipated in heat."

The 'real' resistance doesn't exist? Totally untrue. The 'real' resistance in a 'real' load is dissipative and does
turn the absorbed power into heat. On the other hand, are you familiar with the term 'non-dissipative'
resistance? Resistance resulting only from a voltage-current ratio, R = E/I is simply a ratio, and has no ability
to dissipate power. Consider the input impedance of a matched lossless transmission line, Zo = E/I, a simple
ratio, dissipating zero power. However, a real resistive load terminating the line will absorb and dissipate all
the power that entered the line, but none will be dissipated at the input of the line, because its input
impedance is non-dissipative. I invite you to review the definitions of dissipative and non-dissipative
resistances in the IEEE dictionary.

Your #5 comment, I quote:

"5. First you have the reader engrave: “ WHERE A TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTS, THE POWER GENERATED BY
ANY RADIO TRANSMITTER EQUALS THE FORWARD POWER MINUS THE REFLECTED POWER IN THE
TRANSMISSION LINE. ALWAYS.”

Then you say: “Now, remember what I had you engrave on the inside of your eyelids a while back?
Transmitted power is equal to forward power minus reflected power.” Again, power can not be subtracted."

Simply a repeat of your comment #3. Then please enlighten us on how reflected power can be added to the
source power at an antenna tuner if it cannot be first subtracted from the forward power.

Sorry if I've been hard on you, but your statements cannot be allowed to stand without rebuttal.

Walt, W2DU

W2DU 09-13-2010, 08:11 PM

To Charles, KC8VWM,
I appreciate the nice words you said about my writings. Thank you. And I'd enjoy meeting you also.

Walt, W2DU

W2DU 09-13-2010, 08:25 PM

For K9ANN:

I just now read your post # 68, and I'm appalled at the consistency of your erroneous assertions. What have
you been reading that has misled you to this degree? Your description of how a mismatched load is matched
with a tuner network is totally off base, and your assertion that reflected power in the line is not real power is
totally incorrect.

If you'd like to understand what really occurs by way of reflection mechanics in matching with a tuner, I invite
you to read Chapter 23 in Reflections, which you can download from my web page at www.w2du.com.

Walt, W2DU

W2DU 09-13-2010, 09:35 PM

Cecil, I have just now reviewed your post #11 in this thread, concerning the conjugate match in real systems,
where the L and C componets in the output-coupling network are real.

If you now review Chapter 24 in the new edition of Reflections III, you'll see that when the source impedance
is adjusted to deliver all the available power to a load having a complex impedance, there is a true conjugate
match in the forward direction, regardless that there is loss in the L and C components--not just close to a
conjugate match.

If the situation is reversed the true conjugate match will not occur, but will take only a small change in the L
and C components in the output network to again achieve a true conjugate match in the reverse direction.

Walt, W2DU

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 11:02 PM

From The IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave
and giving magnitude and direction of power per unit-area propagating in the wave."

It is the power FLOW that is a vector. It is the result of a cross product between two vectors. The Power Flow
Vector tells us how much power density is flowing in a particular direction.

Power itself is the the result of a dot product and results in a scalar.

If you wish to add and subtract vectors, please feel free to do so but nothing in the original article mentioned
anything about power flow vectors.

In a coaxial transmission line, where the unit-area is a constant, it can be dropped from the Poynting vector
units resulting simply in WATTS of power.

WRONG. If you drop the units of the cable area, you change the results you are NOT using the original vector
cross product. Dropping the units means it is no longer a Power Flow Vector.

You just can not drop or add or invert o whatever, willy-nilly, because you want to or because it makes it
easier. You must have a solid mathematical reason for it.

K9AAN 09-13-2010, 11:05 PM

For K9ANN:

The following are my criticisms of your most recent post on this thread:

Your #1 comment concerning standing waves. In my opinion you have merely restated the obvious. I do not
see your comment on the subject as a criticism of Eric's writing. What is your point?

Your #2 comment: I quote, "2. “Often I hear statements like “If you have a big mismatch, all that reflected
Your #2 comment: I quote, "2. “Often I hear statements like “If you have a big mismatch, all that reflected
power is going to come back and burn up your transmitter!"

Impossible. Absolutely impossible...at least in this world. And most likely in the next, as well. All that reflected
power, as we've clearly demonstrated, prevents the transmitter from generating the power in the first place!”

Of course it's impossible. But you are jumping the gun here in criticising Eric for the statement. That was not
Eric's statement--it is a statement made repeatedly during the entire last five decades, by hordes of hams
who were totally ignorant of the subject. That statement is one of the main reasons for my writings on the
subject in the 1970's in an attempt to educate those who didn't understand, writings that were published in
seven articles in QST.

And where have you demonstrated that reflected power prevents the transmitter from generating the power in
the first place? This I'd like to see!

You state that power cannot be subtracted from power. Not true. A certain power, namely reflected power, is
subtracted from the forward power at a mismatched load terminating a source, leaving the difference in power
absorbed in the mismatched load. You can't just assert with any degree of correctness that absorbed power is
not the reflected power subtracted from forward power. Consequently, you are incorrect when you say that
power cannot be subtracted from power.

Your #3 comment:

You evidently believe that for delivery of all available power to a load, both the resistive and reactive
components of the source impedance must be negative. If you believe the resistive component must be
negative, you've been misled--tain't so. What is your source of info for that bit of misinformation? It is true,
that for a conjugate match to exist, the reactive components in the souce and load must be of the opposite
sign, but not the resistive components.

Incidentally, 'miner' is spelled 'minor'.

Your #4 comment, I quote:

"4. “The load impedance must have a real value of resistance less than infinity but greater than zero.” The
“real resistance” you refer to does not exist. You later refer to “radiation resistance” which is an imaginary
quantity used to make the equations come out right but it is not real. If there were real resistance, the power
would be dissipated in heat."

The 'real' resistance doesn't exist? Totally untrue. The 'real' resistance in a 'real' load is dissipative and does
turn the absorbed power into heat. On the other hand, are you familiar with the term 'non-dissipative'
resistance? Resistance resulting only from a voltage-current ratio, R = E/I is simply a ratio, and has no ability
to dissipate power. Consider the input impedance of a matched lossless transmission line, Zo = E/I, a simple
ratio, dissipating zero power. However, a real resistive load terminating the line will absorb and dissipate all
the power that entered the line, but none will be dissipated at the input of the line, because its input
impedance is non-dissipative. I invite you to review the definitions of dissipative and non-dissipative
resistances in the IEEE dictionary.

Your #5 comment, I quote:

"5. First you have the reader engrave: “ WHERE A TRANSMISSION LINE EXISTS, THE POWER GENERATED BY
ANY RADIO TRANSMITTER EQUALS THE FORWARD POWER MINUS THE REFLECTED POWER IN THE
TRANSMISSION LINE. ALWAYS.”

Then you say: “Now, remember what I had you engrave on the inside of your eyelids a while back?
Transmitted power is equal to forward power minus reflected power.” Again, power can not be subtracted."

Simply a repeat of your comment #3. Then please enlighten us on how reflected power can be added to the
source power at an antenna tuner if it cannot be first subtracted from the forward power.

Sorry if I've been hard on you, but your statements cannot be allowed to stand without rebuttal.

Walt, W2DU

Walt, you are confusing Eric's assertions and claims with my own. The writing after the point numbers, in
quotes, are from Eric's article. My comments are without quotes after his cited comments.

Perhaps you had better re-read the posting. I apologize for not making that clear in the post.

John
K9AAN 09-13-2010, 11:20 PM
For K9ANN:

I just now read your post # 68, and I'm appalled at the consistency of your erroneous assertions. What have
you been reading that has misled you to this degree? Your description of how a mismatched load is matched
with a tuner network is totally off base, and your assertion that reflected power in the line is not real power is
totally incorrect.

If you'd like to understand what really occurs by way of reflection mechanics in matching with a tuner, I invite
you to read Chapter 23 in Reflections, which you can download from my web page at www.w2du.com
(http://www.w2du.com).

Walt, W2DU

Walt, it is not considered proper to cite yourself as a source to support your own arguments.

Also, are you sure what you read is what I wrote? I have this nagging feeling we are arguing the same point.

K9AAN 09-14-2010, 12:31 AM

For K9ANN:

I just now read your post # 68, and I'm appalled at the consistency of your erroneous assertions. What have
you been reading that has misled you to this degree? Your description of how a mismatched load is matched
with a tuner network is totally off base, and your assertion that reflected power in the line is not real power is
totally incorrect.

If you'd like to understand what really occurs by way of reflection mechanics in matching with a tuner, I invite
you to read Chapter 23 in Reflections, which you can download from my web page at www.w2du.com
(http://www.w2du.com).

Walt, W2DU

Again, I believe that you are confusing Eric's assertions with my own. I never said that reflected power is not
real power. Eric said that. He's the one that says reflected power will not burn out the transmitter.

K9AAN 09-14-2010, 12:34 AM

For K9ANN, the quote of Eric's I referred to was to provide validity to my contradiction to some of your
statements, with which I totally disagree. Now Eric's quote:

"Well, I suppose I could go on and on about this absolutely intriguing subject, but instead I'll refer you to two
pieces of required reading:

“My Feedline Tunes My Antenna,” By Byron Goodman, W1DX (SK). Originally published in QST in 1956, it has
been reprinted several times since. A genuine classic, and a fine example of clear analytical thinking...a rarity
in ham radio today.

“Reflections” by Walt Maxwell, W2DU. This is the most eloquent and detailed work on the subject ever written.
Most of the material in this EPILOGUE chapter was stolen, not in prose, but in principle, from Walt's writings.
This originally appeared in a series of QST articles in the 1970s, but has been consolidated in a couple of
excellent books, Reflections and Reflections II. I understand there's a Reflections III coming out soon."

The only portion of Eric's writing that I consider incorrect is where he asserts that when a transmitter (source)
is adjusted to achieve a conjugate match to its load, half the power is lost in the internal resistance of the
source, allowing only half of the available power to be delivered to the load. This portion of Eric's writing is
incorrect, and I am in touch with him concerning it.

However, now referring to your most recent post, in which you appear to disagree with other points in Eric's
writing, I respectfully disagree with your criticisms. I'll reply to each of my criticisms after I've made a more
careful review of your post.

Walt, W2DU

Again, you can not use yourself as a reference to support your assertions. Also, Eric is correct. When there is
a match, half the power is consumed in the source resistance and the rest goes into the load.
KD8GFC 09-14-2010, 12:45 AM
Please LOCK the thread. This is getting nuts.

W8JI 09-14-2010, 01:35 AM

What most hams DON'T realize about this is that the condition for maximum power transfer (perfect conjugate
match) also results in a 50% overall system EFFICIENCY! Half the power is burned up in the internal resistance
of the battery (or transmitter) and the other half actually does something you want...like start a car or
transmit a radio signal. In fact, this is the BEST you can do, even theoretically.

The above is clearly wrong. The Norton and Thevenin equivalents used to explain the conjugate match
actually come with the qualification they cannot be used to describe what happens inside the source.

As a matter of fact if we calculate efficiency using the Thevenin equivalent, we get one value. If we change it
to Norton's, something the theorems allow, we get a different answer!!! When we use two interchangeable
models and get different results, it shows we are breaking the rules of the models!

I don't know when we got derailed on this, but at some time someone somewhere starting thinking all
resistances are dissipative.

Many are not, and simply represent a circuit equivalent of a load or source in energy conversion. Efficiency
could be 100%, and the system act like it is a resistor so far as electrical behavior up to the point where the
conversion occurs. The only catch is there is no heat produced, so efficiency can be 100% and the system still
behave exactly like a resistance is there.

Radiation resistance is a great example. An energy limited source, like a generator driven by falling water, is
another.

If you're running a 50KW broadcast station, 24/7, and paying for every dime of "juicitricity" EFFICIENCY takes
on a whole new meaning. A typical A.M. broadcast transmitter runs at about 85% R.F. conversion efficiency
with full modulation.

You're probably asking, "How do they DO that with a conjugate match?"

Answer: They don't!

This is wrong too. If the system is not near a conjugate match, the efficiency and power won't be maximum. It
would take pages to explain this, but I measured a pair of 6146's deep into class C. The waveform had a very
sharp transition into and out of conduction because I had 3rd harmonic resonators in the anode and grid
circuits and very high grid bias to make short sharp current pulses.

When I tuned that PA for maximum output and maximum efficiency, the system was very near a perfect
conjugate match. This was verified with a load pull and with a reverse power generator barely tickling the
transmitter near the operating frequency.

Now certainly the PA did not have to matched, but the notion matching produces 50% or less efficiency is
wrong. We do not match to the time-integrated dissipative resistance of the tube. We match to the across and
through vectors, the fundamental frequency current and voltage, at the anodes.

At KJNP we had a 1970 Harris VP-50 (vapor-phase cooled) 50kw transmitter. It had a single 7480 triode in the
final, run at "hard" class C. It would put out 100 kW with full modulation without even asking, "Mother may I"
just by cranking up the plate loading a bit. If you DID say, "Mother May I," you could get about 150 KW out of
the thing...but with lame modulation. Obviously we didn't RUN it that way, since it would have been grossly
illegal. (Don't ask how I knew this by the way. :) ) But it would simply LOAF ALONG at 50 KW.
The point is, the NORMAL operating condition was WELL below the conjugate match point. It was quite lightly
loaded. Tons of power to spare, with high EFFICIENCY, but nothing like a match for maximum power
output...more like 35 percent.

Based on what measurement of source impedance? An assumption?

Well, it doesn't change the definition of the conjugate match one iota...it just changes the numbers you plug
in. The SOURCE impedance of a tube (or any device, for that matter) is roughly the DC impedance times the
inverse of the DUTY CYCLE.

It is not.

Here is what it is:

Skip down to "Proper Plate Load Impedance or Operating Impedance of an RF Amplifier" at this link:

http://www.w8ji.com/Vacuum_tube_amps.htm

For something like a switching regulator, this is a fairly simple calculation. For a non-square R.F. wave, it's a
bit more complex, but the principle is the same. All things being equal, a Class C amplifier has a higher
SOURCE impedance because it's not "ON" as frequently.

That's not true either. The class C amplifier's source resistance depends on the across vector and through
vector of the fundamental waveform (if that is what we want) at the anode. It is lower, all things equal, than a
class A or B stage.

The impedance of a class C amp can actually be quite low for a given amount of anode voltage. This is
because the RMS voltage is fixed or limited by anode voltage and RF power is higher than with lower efficiency
amplifiers. Say we had 3000 volts and 1000 watts at optimum loadline. We would have about 3000^2/1000=
9000 ohms.

If we had the same HV on a class B stage we might only have 2700 volts RMS, but 70% of the power because
of efficiency reduction in the conversion process. We would have 2700^2/700=10,414 ohms.

You'll see this hold true if you look at approximations used in some amateur books. The class C stage's RF
resistance uses the shortcut Ep/2*Ip=R equiv for the tank. The class B stage uses Ep/1.57*Ip. The class A
stage uses Ep/1.3*Ip.

This clearly is exactly the opposite of what was described!! The class C stage has the lowest impedance for a
given plate current and voltage even in the shortcuts.

We do NOT match to the time-integrated "resistance" of the tube. We match to the available voltage and
current at the chosen operating loadline.

This is more accurately found through a Chaffe analysis, where we use the tube's characteristic curves to
calculate the optimum voltage and current available. Eimac has a calculator tool that does this using their
constant characteristic curves to calculate the optimum available RF voltage and current.

A class A source impedance is much lower. Again, assuming all other parameters are the same...which they
generally aren't. BUT...the general rule is, a Class C amplifier will be much lighter loaded for a given power
than a Class A amplifier. And Class AB and othe in betweens, similarly scaled.

That is not fully correct either.

Again we match to the maximum available voltage and current under the operating condition we select.

If we start "loading light", this is what happens:

http://www.w8ji.com/demonstation.htm

We don't have to operate with a conjugate match, but we have to be close if we want maximum efficiency.

One way to see how different the time-averaged dc plate-to- cathode resistance is from the RF source
impedance is to consider a plate modulation system. The calculated load for determining loaded tank Q is
nothing at all close to the load on the modulator.

This is why I say the post was almost entirely wrong. The real world is actually opposite some of the technical
descriptions.

73 Tom

W2DU 09-14-2010, 02:13 AM

K9ANN:

You stated: "Walt, it is not considered proper to cite yourself as a source to support your own arguments."

I'm sorry you consider my comments in this way. So please let me explain. I wrote the first seven chapters of
"Reflections" as articles published in QST in the 1970's, which were proof read for accuracy by RF engineers in
four different divisions of RCA and approved for accuracy. The articles were also praised by then Technical
four different divisions of RCA and approved for accuracy. The articles were also praised by then Technical
Editor of QST, George Grammer. The ARRL then asked me to put the articles into a book, along with additional
writings. The 1st edition of Reflections was published in 1990 by the ARRL, 20 years ago, also after peer
review, with no reports of any incorrect statements. The 2nd ed was published in 2001, also after peer review,
with no reports of any incorrect statements. The 3rd edition has now been published by CQ, also after careful
peer review. During this time five RF engineers, all with PhD's in EE, have told me that the material in my
books far exceed the level and breadth required for acceptance as a dissertation for the PhD degree.

Consequently, when I refer to Reflections as a rebuttal reference to correct incorrect information, I don't
consider my rebuttal remarks as coming currently from my own mind, but using Reflections as a reference as
if it were from any other author who has gained the respect of his peers. If you still don't approve of
Reflections used as a reference, I'm sorry. The least I can do is to invite you again to my web page, and to
read some of the Chapters from Reflections, hoping that you might see the light on some of the issues we've
been discussing.

Walt, W2DU

W5DXP 09-14-2010, 04:24 AM

You just can not drop or add or invert o whatever, willy-nilly, because you want to or because it makes it
easier. You must have a solid mathematical reason for it.

Maybe you should review the non-willy-nilly rules of dimensional analysis. If the unit-area is constant and
appears in every denominator of an equation, we can multiply every term on both sides of the equation by
that constant and the equation is still valid.

On another note, it's easy to see that reflected power is real by considering a one-second long lossless
transmission line with 200 watts of forward power and 100 watts of reflected power. There are 300 joules of
RF energy in that transmission line and it cannot stand still. That means 300 joules/sec are passing a
measurement point, 200 joules flowing forward end-to-end in one second and 100 joules flowing rearward
end-to-end in one second. The 300 joules were delivered to the transmission line during the transient key-
down state and during steady-state, have not yet made it to the load.

W2DU 09-14-2010, 03:05 PM

Final for K9ANN:

Ignore my comments, if you insist, but you have also ignored (but should not have) the comments of W5DXP
and W8JI, who are experts in the field of RF. They have also tried to rebut your incorrect assertions, but to no
avail. They have spoken the truth on the issues on which you have been misled.

W2DU

K9AAN 09-14-2010, 06:28 PM

Maybe you should review the non-willy-nilly rules of dimensional analysis. If the unit-area is constant and
appears in every denominator of an equation, we can multiply every term on both sides of the equation by
that constant and the equation is still valid.

On another note, it's easy to see that reflected power is real by considering a one-second long lossless
transmission line with 200 watts of forward power and 100 watts of reflected power. There are 300 joules of
RF energy in that transmission line and it cannot stand still. That means 300 joules/sec are passing a
measurement point, 200 joules flowing forward end-to-end in one second and 100 joules flowing rearward
end-to-end in one second. The 300 joules were delivered to the transmission line during the transient key-
down state and during steady-state, have not yet made it to the load.

See, now you change the rules. You stated that we can just drop the area of the cable because it is constant.
Now you claim that you deleted the area because it's in the denominator and it was removed by multiplying.
That is legitimate, of course, if EVERY term in the formula is also multiplied by the same value. However, it
still changes the value of the vector and may even change the vector to a scalar since you removed a key
dimension.

Again, these things must have a valid math and physical reality before doing so.

Yes, if we have an un-matched line with 200 Joules of forward and 100 Joules refelected, there is a total of
300 Joules. But that 100 Joules of reflected goes back into the final amp of the transmitter and may, if kept up
for a long enough period of time, cause the final amp to burn up.

Eric's claim is that the 100 Joules reduces the transmitter's output and it will never burn out the final because
the returned power is subtracted for the final's power.
the returned power is subtracted for the final's power.

I claim that the 100 Joules will not reduce the final's output and, after a long enough time, will probably burn
up the final amp if it isn't designed for the additional energy.

Eric's comment was that even in the line became matched, there would still be 300 Joules of energy which is
incorrect. In a matched line there would be only 200 Joules of forward energy. It measures as 300 Joules
because it is Apparent Power because of the Phase Shift introduced by the Tuner. OR do you deny the fact
that LC circuits produce phase shifts?

[B]So, do your comments mean that you agree with Eric that the returned power is subtracted, the final's
output is reduced and the final will not burn out because of high SWR? If so, why did my transmitter's final
amp plate glow red when it was mismatched? Why have experts for almost 100 years claim that reflected
energy will burn up a transmitter?

John

W8JI 09-14-2010, 06:59 PM

So, do your comments mean that you agree with Eric that the returned power is subtracted, the final's output
is reduced and the final will not burn out because of high SWR? If so, why did my transmitter's final amp plate
glow red when it was mismatched? Why have experts for almost 100 years claim that reflected energy will
burn up a transmitter?

John

John,

I know of many CB operators, casual electronics experimenters, and some Hams who think reflected power is
dissipated in the PA output device.

I can't think of a single true "expert" who believes that myth.

It is all explained here:

http://www.w8ji.com/loading_amplifier.htm

Let's not pick on spelling. That does not win or lose a technical disagreement. One of the very best engineers
at Eimac was terrible speller.

73 Tom

G3TXQ 09-14-2010, 07:06 PM

K9AAN,

Suppose I have a transmitter designed to deliver 100W into a 50 ohm resistive load. I connect it to a 50 ohm
dummy load through an exact half-wavelength of lossless Zo=300 ohm line.

The VSWR on the line will be 6:1, and with 100W delivered to the load the forward power on the line will be
204W and the reverse power will be 104W.

How can the 104W reverse power on the line affect the longevity of the transmitter? The transmitter "sees" a
50 ohm resistive load just as it was designed to do.

Are you suggesting that the transmitter somehow distinguishes between the 50+j0 load impedance of the
dummy load, and the 50+j0 load impedance of the dummy load + line?

Steve G3TXQ

W8JI 09-14-2010, 07:42 PM

K9AAN,

Suppose I have a transmitter designed to deliver 100W into a 50 ohm resistive load. I connect it to a 50 ohm
dummy load through an exact half-wavelength of lossless Zo=300 ohm line.
The VSWR on the line will be 6:1, and with 100W delivered to the load the forward power on the line will be
204W and the reverse power will be 104W.

How can the 104W reverse power on the line affect the longevity of the transmitter? The transmitter "sees" a
50 ohm resistive load just as it was designed to do.

Are you suggesting that the transmitter somehow distinguishes between the 50+j0 load impedance of the
dummy load, and the 50+j0 load impedance of the dummy load + line?

Steve G3TXQ

Very good point Steve.

W5DXP 09-14-2010, 08:21 PM

See, now you change the rules. You stated that we can just drop the area of the cable because it is constant.
Now you claim that you deleted the area because it's in the denominator and it was removed by multiplying.

Uh John, multiplying the equation by a common denominator does indeed drop the term from the equation.
Consider the following Poynting vector equation where bold/underline indicates a vector/vector-math equation.

Pload = Pfor + Pref, in watts/in^2

We can multiply by the in^2 area of the coax and the area drops out of the still valid equation leaving nothing
except scalar watts that we can measure with a directional Bird wattmeter:

Pload = Pfor - Pref, in watts

In fact, it appears that, for transmission lines, Ramo and Whinnery, in Fields and Waves ..., completely ignore
the cross-sectional area of the transmission lines and simply present the Poynting vectors in watts.

Yes, if we have an un-matched line with 200 Joules of forward and 100 Joules reflected, there is a total of 300
Joules. But that 100 Joules of reflected goes back into the final amp of the transmitter and may, if kept up for
a long enough period of time, cause the final amp to burn up.

You need to add the word "can" to that sentence. Reflected energy can cause the final amp to burn up. It can
cause damage in two ways:

1. If the reflected current arrives at the source in phase with the source current, it can cause an over-current
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much current, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the low side. That load impedance is:
Z=(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [phasors bolded]

2. If the reflected voltage arrives at the source in phase with the source voltage, it can cause an over-voltage
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much voltage, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the high side.

Eric's claim is that the 100 Joules reduces the transmitter's output and it will never burn out the final because
the returned power is subtracted for the final's power.

That is true for protected rigs when the protection is functioning. They cut back on their output power until the
net voltage or net current are no longer out of spec. The protection circuitry normally specifies a maximum
SWR.

I claim that the 100 Joules will not reduce the final's output and, after a long enough time, will probably burn
up the final amp if it isn't designed for the additional energy.

It depends entirely on the design of the final. Some finals that cannot handle the over-current or over-voltage
may fail - some may not. Protected finals should never fail if the protection circuitry is functioning properly.

Of more importance is that in a properly tuned system, e.g. antenna tuner system, the source sees zero
reflected energy because a Z0-match is established at the input of the tuner, e.g. a 50 ohm Z0-match. In that
case all of the reflected energy is redistributed back toward the load.

Eric's comment was that even in the line became matched, there would still be 300 Joules of energy which is
Eric's comment was that even in the line became matched, there would still be 300 Joules of energy which is
incorrect. In a matched line there would be only 200 Joules of forward energy.

It certainly depends upon the load impedance for which the amplifier is designed. For instance, there is zero
reflected power when Z0 = Rload = 600 ohms. However, a source designed for a load of 50 ohms would
experience a large mismatch and may or may not fail as a result.

So, do your comments mean that you agree with Eric that the returned power is subtracted, the final's output
is reduced and the final will not burn out because of high SWR?

There is a convention that says: if the source is capable of sourcing 100 watts and it is delivering 50 watts
because of 50 watts of reflected power, that the source is not only delivering 50 watts but is also only sourcing
50 watts. It is delivering 50 watts because of an impedance mismatch Z=(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [phasors
bolded] which may or may not be bad enough to damage the amp. Eric may simply be quoting that
convention.

My SG-500 amp is designed to drive a 50 ohm load and to tolerate a 6:1 SWR. So it could easily handle 200
watts forward power and 100 watts of reflected power with no problem. My IC-706 seems to reduce its output
power to a level where there is no more than 10 watts of reflected power. In this case, it appears that it would
reduce its output power to 20 watts.

There is no one blanket statement that will cover all amplifier designs.

W5DXP 09-14-2010, 09:18 PM

Are you suggesting that the transmitter somehow distinguishes between the 50+j0 load impedance of the
dummy load, and the 50+j0 load impedance of the dummy load + line?

Everything is explained by taking interference into account. It is explained in section 4.3 of Reflections:

http://w2du.com/Chapter04.pdf

In your above 1/2WL example, the interference between the source wave and the reflected wave is total
destructive interference toward the source output and no reflected energy reaches the source. All the
reflected energy is redistributed back toward the load as constructive interference in the opposite direction to
the destructive interference. The impedance seen by the source is (Vfor-Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) = 50 ohms. The
reflected voltage arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the source voltage. The reflected current arrives in
phase with the source current.

If you change the feedline length from 1/2WL to 1/4WL, the constructive interference occurs toward the
source which is flooded with reflected wave energy and causes the source to see an impedance of
(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor-Iref) = 1800 ohms. The reflected voltage arrives in phase with the source voltage. The
reflected current arrives 180 degrees out of phase with the source current. The resulting over-voltage
condition may (or may not) be high enough to cause damage to the final.

Note that the impedance seen by the final is caused by the phase of the reflected wave and being a V/I ratio,
is not a dissipative impedor but is instead a non-dissipative (virtual) impedance. Some people say the high
voltage is caused by the impedance but that is reversing cause and effect. It is the vector sum of the source
voltage and reflected voltage that causes the high voltage. The impedance is the result of that high-voltage
(and low-current). In the case of the 1/4WL line, reflected energy indeed enters the final and can cause
damage.

Note that it is impossible to cause damage without energy. In the 1/4WL example, the extra energy causing
the over-voltage damage comes from the reflected voltage. The virtual impedance seen by the source is the
result of superposition of the source wave and reflected wave at the source.

What has happened is that some otherwise knowledgeable technical people have taken their shortcuts literally
and come to believe that their shortcuts dictate the laws of physics rather than vice versa.

W8JI 09-14-2010, 11:08 PM

Cecil,

The networks and components inside the amplifier modify the impedance presented to the output device or
devices. A short at the output port often results in an open at the output device, or vice versa.

Since the internals are unknown, it is best to stop at the output port and not try to predict what happens inside
for a certain load at the output port. :-)
Sometimes voltage will increase and the dissipation will drop, at other times dissipation can increase and
voltage be reduced. The amp really "doesn't care" what the standing waves on the transmission line are like,
it only "cares" what the output port impedance is.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-15-2010, 02:46 AM

The amp really "doesn't care" what the standing waves on the transmission line are like, it only "cares" what
the output port impedance is.

The point is that the output port impedance is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) where all four values are phasors, i.e.
the output impedance cannot even exist without the reflected wave. The output impedance is NOT an impedor,
i.e. it is not a real physical impedance. It is a virtual non-dissipative impedance. Virtual non-dissipative
impedances cannot be the cause of anything and are actually the result of the reflected wave phasors
superposed with the source wave phasors. I'm sorry, it is ridiculous to say reflected energy never enters the
amp when it is the reflected energy that causes the impedance seen by the amp.

Here is one special case where all the reflected power is dissipated in the source resistor. The example was
invented by W7EL in his food for thought series so don't blame me for it. :)

http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm

W5DXP 09-15-2010, 12:23 PM

Since the internals are unknown, it is best to stop at the output port and not try to predict what happens inside
for a certain load at the output port. :-)

Tom, I agree with this statement of yours. I am just pointing out that there is a reflected wave incident upon
the source output port that contains ExH energy. If it does not see the Z0 of the line at that port, some will be
re-reflected back toward the load. Only if it sees a short, open, or pure reactance will all of it be re-reflected
back toward the load. In addition to a re-reflection, the reflected energy can be redistributed back toward the
load associated with destructive interference in the source so it is possible, best case, for all of the ExH
incident reflected energy to wind up back at the load. But if there is any dissipative source resistance along
with worst case constructive interference between the source wave and the reflected wave, dissipation can
occur in the source. Destruction can obviously occur in an unprotected source. The cause of the destruction is
the reflected wave which is the cause of the out-of-spec impedance.

Point is that the impedance "seen" by the reflected wave is not a resistor, capacitor, or inductor, i.e. not an
impedor. It is a dissipationless virtual impedance resulting from and caused by the superposition of the source
wave and the reflected wave. Saying that the virtual impedance seen by the source is the cause of anything is
a reversal of cause and effect.

W8JI 09-15-2010, 12:28 PM

You need to add the word "can" to that sentence. Reflected energy can cause the final amp to burn up. It can
cause damage in two ways:

1. If the reflected current arrives at the source in phase with the source current, it can cause an over-current
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much current, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the low side. That load impedance is:
Z=(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [phasors bolded]

2. If the reflected voltage arrives at the source in phase with the source voltage, it can cause an over-voltage
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much voltage, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the high side.

If I have a transmitter tuned for 50 ohms that dives a 600 ohm line terminated in 600 ohms, the line SWR is
1:1. There are no reflected waves in the system.

The effect of that termination on the transmitter is exactly the same as if the line is one half wave of lossless
50 ohm line termininated in 600 ohms, and the VSWR is 12:1 on that line.

The change in PA operating loadline comes from the output port mismatch, not the standing waves elsewhere
in the system. A short at the output port could increase voltage or reduce voltage, it could increase dissipation
or reduce dissipation. The effect all depends on the PA design.

The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves making it back to the output device.
The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves making it back to the output device.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-15-2010, 01:17 PM

If I have a transmitter tuned for 50 ohms that dives a 600 ohm line terminated in 600 ohms, the line SWR is
1:1. There are no reflected waves in the system.

Your shortcuts are causing you to miss something important. You didn't complete the sentence. "There are no
reflected waves in the system" outside of the transmitter but there is a localized reflection at the 50 ohm to
600 ohm impedance discontinuity at the transmitter coax connector. If you don't believe it, mentally install
one wavelength of lossless 50 ohm coax between the transmitter and the 600 ohm line. Nothing inside the
transmitter changes and nothing changes on the 600 ohm line. But now those localized reflections are exposed
in all their glory. There is definitely reflected energy at the transmitter 50 ohm output that exists whether the
1WL of coax is there or not. Without the coax, the reflected energy is just contained by and hidden inside the
transmitter. (Out of sight out of mind?) There's no difference in the steady-state conditions inside the source
and on the 600 ohm line between the two following examples.

50 ohm XMTR---+---600 ohm line---600 ohm load

50 ohm
XMTR----1WL lossless 50 ohm coax---+---600 ohm line---600 ohm load

A directional Bird wattmeter will give exactly the same readings at the output of the transmitter in both cases -
you can believe those readings. The SWR inside the transmitter is 12:1 in both cases because the
environment inside the transmitter is a 50 ohm environment. There is probably a short piece of 50 ohm coax
between the output connector and the output circuitry. What you need to look at is the SWR on that short
piece of coax where reflected energy exists. It only takes an inch or so to force Vfor/Ifor = Vref/Iref = 50
ohms on the coax.

The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves making it back to the output device.

Point is, the superposition of the source wave and the reflected wave causes the mismatch. The mismatch is a
result and has no existence outside of the reflected wave, localized or otherwise. That the reflected wave is
localized and out of sight inside the transmitter is a moot point - the laws of reflection physics say it still exists
at the 50 ohm to 600 ohm impedance discontinuity no matter where the discontinuity is located. It is still a
virtual impedance, i.e. a V/I ratio that is the result of the net voltage divided by the net current. There is no
600 ohm resistor on the transmitter output. There is nothing getting hot at the transmitter output. The 600
ohms is a virtual impedance caused by rho=0.846 at the 50 ohm to 600 ohm impedance discontinuity that
exists at the transmitter coax output connector.

W8JI 09-15-2010, 01:35 PM

Your shortcuts are causing you to miss something important. You didn't complete the sentence. "There are no
reflected waves in the system" outside of the transmitter but there is a localized reflection at the 50 ohm to
600 ohm impedance discontinuity at the transmitter coax connector. If you don't believe it, mentally install
one wavelength of lossless 50 ohm coax between the transmitter and the 600 ohm line. Nothing inside the
transmitter changes and nothing changes on the 600 ohm line. But now those localized reflections are exposed
in all their glory. There is definitely reflected energy at the transmitter 50 ohm output that exists whether the
1WL of coax is there or not. Without the coax, the reflected energy is just contained by and hidden inside the
transmitter. (Out of sight out of mind?) There's no difference in the steady-state conditions inside the source
and on the 600 ohm line between the two following examples.

50 ohm XMTR---+---600 ohm line---600 ohm load

50 ohm
XMTR----1WL lossless 50 ohm coax---+---600 ohm line---600 ohm load

A directional Bird wattmeter will give exactly the same readings at the output of the transmitter in both cases -
you can believe those readings. The SWR inside the transmitter is 12:1 in both cases because the
environment inside the transmitter is a 50 ohm environment. There is probably a short piece of 50 ohm coax
between the output connector and the output circuitry. What you need to look at is the SWR on that short
piece of coax where reflected energy exists. It only takes an inch or so to force Vfor/Ifor = Vref/Iref = 50
ohms on the coax.

Point is, the superposition of the source wave and the reflected wave causes the mismatch. The mismatch is a
result and has no existence outside of the reflected wave, localized or otherwise. That the reflected wave is
result and has no existence outside of the reflected wave, localized or otherwise. That the reflected wave is
localized and out of sight inside the transmitter is a moot point - the laws of reflection physics say it still exists
at the 50 ohm to 600 ohm impedance discontinuity no matter where the discontinuity is located. It is still a
virtual impedance, i.e. a V/I ratio that is the result of the net voltage divided by the net current. There is no
600 ohm resistor on the transmitter output. There is nothing getting hot at the transmitter output. The 600
ohms is a virtual impedance caused by rho=0.846 at the 50 ohm to 600 ohm impedance discontinuity that
exists at the transmitter coax output connector.

There can be a 600 resistor there, and the results inside the source would be identical. :-)

W5DXP 09-15-2010, 02:40 PM

There can be a 600 resistor there, and the results inside the source would be identical. :-)

I don't know what you think that proves. Are you saying that there are no reflections from a 600 ohm resistor
at the end of a piece of 50 ohm coax? The 600 ohm resistor, like any 600 load resistor, causes localized
reflections at the 50 ohm to 600 ohm impedance discontinuity at the transmitter output connector where the
reflection coefficient is still 0.846. A Bird wattmeter will still indicate a 12:1 SWR at the transmitter output
connector and inside the 50 ohm transmitter environment. The only difference putting a resistor there makes
is that the impedance is no longer virtual but everything else remains exactly the same as before. That
supports my side of the argument.

50 ohm XMTR---Bird wattmeter---600 ohm resistor

The Bird wattmeter furnishes a very short 50 ohm transmission line environment with its thruline pickup. The
SWR is still 12:1 and ExH watts of reflected energy is incident upon the XMTR's 50 ohm environment. The
transmission line doesn't have to be very long. The distributed network model still works. You haven't changed
a single condition by using a resistor.

Hint: The distributed network model, including reflection mechanics, works just as well for a lumped circuit as
it does for a distributed network because it is closer to Maxwell's equations than is the lumped circuit model.
This is not the first time you have been snookered by the lumped circuit model.

K9AAN 09-15-2010, 03:39 PM

John,

I know of many CB operators, casual electronics experimenters, and some Hams who think reflected power is
dissipated in the PA output device.

I can't think of a single true "expert" who believes that myth.

It is all explained here:

http://www.w8ji.com/loading_amplifier.htm

Let's not pick on spelling. That does not win or lose a technical disagreement. One of the very best engineers
at Eimac was terrible speller.

73 Tom

Notice that I corrected the spelling of the call sign and that of Joules in brackets which takes outside of the
main argument. But, I'll bet if he sends anything out for public review/publication, somebody does a spell
check on it. Poor spelling casts a negative shadow on the work. If one wishes to be taken seriously they
should take the time to, at least, spell correctly.

Thanks for comments on the spelling Omt!

John

K9AAN 09-15-2010, 04:07 PM

John,

I know of many CB operators, casual electronics experimenters, and some Hams who think reflected power is
dissipated in the PA output device.

I can't think of a single true "expert" who believes that myth.

I can't think of a single true "expert" who believes that myth.

It is all explained here:

http://www.w8ji.com/loading_amplifier.htm

Let's not pick on spelling. That does not win or lose a technical disagreement. One of the very best engineers
at Eimac was terrible speller.

73 Tom

The following is from

http://www.w8ji.com/loading_amplifier.htm

That you referred me to in his posting. I hope that this was what you wanted me to see.

“SWR or Reflected Power Myth:

We often hear people claim reflected power burns up as heat in the power amplifier stage. This is not true at
all.
The only effect of reflected power is it changes the loadline of the output device. This can either increase PA
device RF voltage swing, or it can increase PA device current. If the voltage increases heat generally is
reduced, but the PA can arc. If the load mismatch is of a phase angle that increases current, PA device
heating increases because conduction angle and peak current increases.
In one case heat increases, in the other heat decreases. An SWR mismatch only requires the matching
network be readjusted to restore the proper loadline at the output device. In an adjustable pi-network or pi-L
network system the only effect of SWR is in current in the inductor(s) and voltage across the loading
capacitor, so long as the network can be adjusted to proper load at the output device. in other words if you
can retune the network and don't exceed voltage breakdown of the loading capacitor, your amplifier is very
likely OK for any SWR. “

First, Eric disagrees with you, Tom, so one or both of you are wrong.
Eric said that Reflected Power NEVER causes overheating in the final amp but you say that only “If the load
mismatch is of a phase angle that increases current, PA device heating increases because conduction angle
and peak current increases.”

Second, every LC network changes the phase angles of AC signals going through them. This phase angle
changes the angular relationship between the voltage and the current. A phase angle change can NEVER
increase or decrease the voltage or current. Unless, of course, you are talking about the phase relationship
between reflected and forward power. But you don’t say so.
You say “if you can retune the network and don't exceed voltage breakdown of the loading capacitor, your
amplifier is very likely OK for any SWR. “
So, what you are saying is that as long as you can match the impedance of your final amp using the output Pi-
Network (or Pi-L Network) to the cable, you amp will be OK. Sure! I agree with that because a matched
system doesn’t have a reflected power. A properly designed Pi or Pi-L network is an impedance transformer.
[It’s also a great band pass filter which is why it’s used for output tuning.] It has one impedance at it’s input,
the final amp, and other at the output to match the transmission line.

So, OK, I agree with you if, as you say, everything is matched,
We have no argument here.

K9AAN 09-15-2010, 04:20 PM

K9AAN,

Suppose I have a transmitter designed to deliver 100W into a 50 ohm resistive load. I connect it to a 50 ohm
dummy load through an exact half-wavelength of lossless Zo=300 ohm line.

The VSWR on the line will be 6:1, and with 100W delivered to the load the forward power on the line will be
204W and the reverse power will be 104W.

How can the 104W reverse power on the line affect the longevity of the transmitter? The transmitter "sees" a
50 ohm resistive load just as it was designed to do.

Are you suggesting that the transmitter somehow distinguishes between the 50+j0 load impedance of the
dummy load, and the 50+j0 load impedance of the dummy load + line?
dummy load, and the 50+j0 load impedance of the dummy load + line?

Steve G3TXQ

Sorry Steve, I am unable to understand what you are asking? If the forward power is 100W, you can't get
104W of reverse power. The Rho value at the load is only 0.71.

I hope the dummy load has an impedance of 50 + j0 but the impedance at the source can not be the 50 + j0
with an SWR of 5.6 at the source (the 6.0 is at the load).

Perhaps you believe that I understand more than I do. Can you please re-phrase the question?

John

K9AAN 09-15-2010, 04:39 PM

Uh John, multiplying the equation by a common denominator does indeed drop the term from the equation.
Consider the following Poynting vector equation where bold/underline indicates a vector/vector-math equation.

Pload = Pfor + Pref, in watts/in^2

We can multiply by the in^2 area of the coax and the area drops out of the still valid equation leaving nothing
except scalar watts that we can measure with a directional Bird wattmeter:

Pload = Pfor - Pref, in watts

In fact, it appears that, for transmission lines, Ramo and Whinnery, in Fields and Waves ..., completely ignore
the cross-sectional area of the transmission lines and simply present the Poynting vectors in watts.

I know. That's what I said.

You need to add the word "can" to that sentence. Reflected energy can cause the final amp to burn up. It can
cause damage in two ways:

1. If the reflected current arrives at the source in phase with the source current, it can cause an over-current
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much current, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the low side. That load impedance is:
Z=(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [phasors bolded]

2. If the reflected voltage arrives at the source in phase with the source voltage, it can cause an over-voltage
condition which, if the final cannot handle that much voltage, can cause damage. This is exactly the same
thing as saying the load impedance on the source is out of spec on the high side.

What about it a resistor? Does the power in one direction have to be in phase with the power in the other
direction in order to create excessive heat? The output of a final amp is resistive so it doesn't matter if they
are in phase or not.

That is true for protected rigs when the protection is functioning. They cut back on their output power until the
net voltage or net current are no longer out of spec. The protection circuitry normally specifies a maximum
SWR.

Now your changing things again. The original discussion did not say anything about protected systems.

Of more importance is that in a properly tuned system, e.g. antenna tuner system, the source sees zero
reflected energy because a Z0-match is established at the input of the tuner, e.g. a 50 ohm Z0-match. In that
case all of the reflected energy is redistributed back toward the load.

Actually, since the system is matched, there is no reflected power. Property of symmetry. If a system is
matched at one impedance, it behaves the same if matched at another impedance. If there is no reflected
power when all impedance are, say, 52 Ohms or 600 Ohms, then there is no reflected power at any
impedance including complex impedances.

There is a convention that says: if the source is capable of sourcing 100 watts and it is delivering 50 watts
because of 50 watts of reflected power, that the source is not only delivering 50 watts but is also only sourcing
50 watts. It is delivering 50 watts because of an impedance mismatch Z=(Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [phasors
bolded] which may or may not be bad enough to damage the amp. Eric may simply be quoting that
bolded] which may or may not be bad enough to damage the amp. Eric may simply be quoting that
convention.

Then the convention is wrong. An ideal voltage source has zero resistance and reactance. A real voltage
source is modeled as an ideal source in series with it's output impedance. For maximum power transfer, the
source impedance must match the load impedance. Therefore, a 100 watt amplifier delivers 50 watts into its
source resistance and 50 watts into its load. A simple application Ohms Law.

There is no one blanket statement that will cover all amplifier designs.

Well, except for the one immediately above, load must equal source resistance for max power transfer, that's
true. I just got started teaching my students the difference between Class A, B and C amplifiers. Spent 2
hours on it and I'm still not finished.

John

W8JI 09-15-2010, 04:45 PM

The "font quote" things are a nuisance in trying to respond. That needless junk makes it difficult to selectively
quote and respond to text.

The following is from

http://www.w8ji.com/loading_amplifier.htm

That you referred me to in his posting. I hope that this was what you wanted me to see.

“SWR or Reflected Power Myth:

We often hear people claim reflected power burns up as heat in the power amplifier stage. This is not true at
all.
The only effect of reflected power is it changes the loadline of the output device. This can either increase PA
device RF voltage swing, or it can increase PA device current. If the voltage increases heat generally is
reduced, but the PA can arc. If the load mismatch is of a phase angle that increases current, PA device
heating increases because conduction angle and peak current increases.
In one case heat increases, in the other heat decreases. An SWR mismatch only requires the matching
network be readjusted to restore the proper loadline at the output device. In an adjustable pi-network or pi-L
network system the only effect of SWR is in current in the inductor(s) and voltage across the loading
capacitor, so long as the network can be adjusted to proper load at the output device. in other words if you
can retune the network and don't exceed voltage breakdown of the loading capacitor, your amplifier is very
likely OK for any SWR. “

First, Eric disagrees with you, Tom, so one or both of you are wrong.

(I hope this comes out right. )

True enough. One of us is wrong.

The actual mechanism is more complex than I described so I am speaking only in the most general terms, but
in short form load that increase PA current by pulling the loadline below optimum resistance increase heat,
while loads that move the loadline to a higher resistance decrease heat.

If I had ten lifetimes and a love to argue things unnecessary, meaningless, and confusing to 99.999% of the
population, I might engage the more complex subject of waves inside networks of lumped components. I'll
leave that to others with unlimited time.
:-)

Eric said that Reflected Power NEVER causes overheating in the final amp but you say that only “If the load
mismatch is of a phase angle that increases current, PA device heating increases because conduction angle
and peak current increases.”
Second, every LC network changes the phase angles of AC signals going through them. This phase angle
changes the angular relationship between the voltage and the current. A phase angle change can NEVER
increase or decrease the voltage or current. Unless, of course, you are talking about the phase relationship
between reflected and forward power. But you don’t say so.
You say “if you can retune the network and don't exceed voltage breakdown of the loading capacitor, your
amplifier is very likely OK for any SWR. “
So, what you are saying is that as long as you can match the impedance of your final amp using the output Pi-
Network (or Pi-L Network) to the cable, you amp will be OK. Sure! I agree with that because a matched
system doesn’t have a reflected power. A properly designed Pi or Pi-L network is an impedance transformer.
[It’s also a great band pass filter which is why it’s used for output tuning.] It has one impedance at it’s input,
the final amp, and other at the output to match the transmission line.

So, OK, I agree with you if, as you say, everything is matched,
We have no argument here.

A load change can do almost anything, depending on the system.

The important thing is standing waves can change the termination impedance on the amplifier, so the amplifier
loadline changes.

I hope this post comes out in the intended format. All these /FONT ?=quote and so on make things difficult.

73 Tom

G3TXQ 09-15-2010, 05:03 PM

Sorry Steve, I am unable to understand what you are asking? If the forward power is 100W, you can't get
104W of reverse power. The Rho value at the load is only 0.71.

I didn't say the forward power was 100W; I said it was 204W. 104W is reflected at the load end of the line,
and 100W is delivered to the load.

I hope the dummy load has an impedance of 50+j0 but the impedance at the source can not be the 50 + j0
with an SWR of 5.6 at the source (the 6.0 is at the load).

The VSWR on the line is 6:1; it's a 300 ohm line terminated with a 50 ohm resistor. The impedance "looking
into the line" at the source end is 50+j0 because the line is lossless and is exactly half a wavelength long.

Perhaps you believe that I understand more than I do. Can you please re-phrase the question?

My question was: why do you think the 104W of reverse power might damage the transmitter, given that the
transmitter is correctly terminated with a 50+j0 load?

Steve G3TXQ

G3TXQ 09-15-2010, 05:13 PM

The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves making it back to the output device.

73 Tom

Tom,

I rarely disagree with you, and I have been "sitting on the fence" in this debate for a while; but I don't think I
can go along with that last statement ;)

In the case of the half-wave lossless 50 ohm line terminated with a 600+j0 load, the initial impedance seen by
the transmitter will be the surge impedance of the line - 50 ohms - until such time as the reflected wave
arrives back at the line input. There will then be a mismatch which will settle at a steady state 600 ohms.

If that is correct, surely the cause of the mismatch must in some measure be attributed to the reflected wave.

Steve G3TXQ
W5DXP 09-15-2010, 08:40 PM
If that is correct, surely the cause of the mismatch must in some measure be attributed to the reflected wave.

If one wants to know where the ExH reflected wave power goes in a system with reflections, one must use the
wave/distributed-network model. In a system like 50 ohm coax feeding a 600 ohm load, the load impedance
"seen" by the source is:

Zload = (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) where the bold terms are phasors being phasor added (superposed).

It should be obvious from the equation that the superposition of forward and reflected waves is what causes
the load impedance seen by the transmitter. Hint: the resistance doesn't get warm.

Soapbox mode on:

When one mentally replaces that V/I ratio impedance with resistors and capacitors/inductors, one has
switched models from the wave/distributed-network model to the lumped-circuit model which is like having a
free home base in hide-and-seek. The distributed network model user cannot tag the lumped circuit model
user when he retreats to home base and wraps himself in the lumped-circuit flag.:)

There is no way of determining what happens to the reflected energy when using the lumped-circuit model.
When one switches to the lumped-circuit model, there is no reflected energy, by definition. There is a
tendency for many (most?) people to switch to the simpler lumped-circuit model even when it is invalid for
analyzing a particular distributed-network problem (like the delay through a foot-long 75m loading coil).

Bottom line, if one is more interested in burying his head in the sand than discovering where the reflected
wave energy goes, one switches to the lumped circuit model in mid-stream where reflected energy cannot
exist, if only by definition.

Soapbox mode off:

W5DXP 09-15-2010, 08:50 PM

Quoting W8JI: "We often hear people claim reflected power burns up as heat in the power amplifier stage.
This is not true at all."

If it is possible to heat up the power amplifier stage by disconnecting the feedline at the antenna, this is
obviously a false statement because the only thing "seen" by the finals is the superposition of the forward
wave and the reflected wave. The forward wave alone will not heat up the amp. The amp definitely can
overheat when the energy in the reflected wave arrives. In fact, depending upon the phasing, it is possible for
energy to be dissipated in the final that would otherwise be dissipated in the load. It's called constructive
interference at the source. Note that no lumped circuit exists so beware of anyone who tries to switch to the
lumped circuit model.

KA5S 09-16-2010, 11:26 AM

If it is possible to heat up the power amplifier stage by disconnecting the feedline at the antenna, this is
obviously a false statement because the only thing "seen" by the finals is the superposition of the forward
wave and the reflected wave. The forward wave alone will not heat up the amp. The amp definitely can
overheat when the energy in the reflected wave arrives. In fact, depending upon the phasing, it is possible for
energy to be dissipated in the final that would otherwise be dissipated in the load. It's called constructive
interference at the source. Note that no lumped circuit exists so beware of anyone who tries to switch to the
lumped circuit model.

Isn't this a chicken and egg bun fight? Is it the RF? A PA tuned and dipped for the load it sees (or more
generally, MATCHED for the load it sees) does not heat up as a result of reflected power arriving at the
antenna terminal, it heats up because it draws more current than designed for (or suffers over-voltage for the
same reason).

Cortland
KA5S

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 12:50 PM

Isn't this a chicken and egg bun fight? Is it the RF? A PA tuned and dipped for the load it sees (or more
generally, MATCHED for the load it sees) does not heat up as a result of reflected power arriving at the
antenna terminal, it heats up because it draws more current than designed for (or suffers over-voltage for the
antenna terminal, it heats up because it draws more current than designed for (or suffers over-voltage for the
same reason).

Nope, not a chicken/egg argument - but a clear confusion of cause and effect. The point is that, in a system
with reflections incident upon the source, the "load" seen by the source is NOT a resistor+capacitor/inductor,
i.e. it is a lossless virtual impedance caused by the superposition of the forward wave and reflected wave! The
load seen by the source is (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref), [bold for phasor/phasor math]. The load seen by the
source is caused by the reflected wave energy. The impedance seen by the load is the result of the reflected
wave energy.

The IEEE Dictionary clearly makes a distinction between a real impedance (Impedor) and a virtual impedance.
Let's stick with "resistance" for the moment.

1. A resistor causes the ratio of V/I to be equal to the resistance of the resistor. This is definition (C) in The
IEEE Dictionary.

Resistor is the cause, V/I ratio is the effect. Most common in a lumped circuit.

2. Assuming they are in phase, the superposition of a forward wave and a reflected wave results in a
resistance. This is definition (B) in The IEEE Dictionary.

V/I ratio is the cause, resistance is the effect. Most common in a distributed network.

When these two types of definitions are declared identical/interchangeable, cause and effect are reversed and
confusion results. It leads some people to declare that there is no energy in a reflected wave in direct
contradiction to the laws of physics. All RF waves contain ExH energy/time subject to the conservation of
energy principle. That energy has to go somewhere. The concept that a source somehow possesses a magic
shield that defies the laws of physics is amateurish, to say the least.

It is easily proved that when a source "sees" a capacitive reactive load and the voltage is at a zero-crossing,
that half the time, current is flowing back into the source. If there is any internal dissipative resistance at all,
power will be dissipated. It is the reflected energy that causes the capacitive reactance.

That a source cannot tell the difference between the two types of impedances is irrelevant. Sources are pretty
dumb. Human beings should be capable of telling the difference and tracking the reflected energy.

Over-voltage or over-current is caused by an impedance mismatch. In a system with reflections, the

impedance mismatch is caused by the reflected wave. Therefore in a system with reflections, the over-voltage
or over-current is caused by the reflected wave. No chicken/egg there - just simple logic involving cause and
effect.

W2DU 09-16-2010, 03:17 PM

Cecil, IMHO, when the source sees an impedance R+jX at its output terminals it can't tell whether the Z is
obtained from a distributed virtual impedance, or from the same value of R+jX of lumped-constant elements.
The source still sees the same mismatch, and reduces the power delivery in exactly the same amount as with
the virtual load impedance. I don't understand why you believe there is a difference in operation between the
two different load impedances. Please explain in terms that I can comprehend.

Walt

W8JI 09-16-2010, 03:55 PM

Isn't this a chicken and egg bun fight? Is it the RF? A PA tuned and dipped for the load it sees (or more
generally, MATCHED for the load it sees) does not heat up as a result of reflected power arriving at the
antenna terminal, it heats up because it draws more current than designed for (or suffers over-voltage for the
same reason).

Cortland
KA5S

That's why I don't want to engage Courtland.

It doesn't matter what causes the loadline at the output device to shift, when it shifts the conduction angle,
voltage, and current are no longer the same.

Trying to carry reflected waves beyond the output port into the non-linear part of the system is as silly as
applying them to a lumped component like a loading coil. It is too easy to get a wrong answer when the model
doesn't easily fit the system, and only confuses people about the actual operation.

Standing waves are fine when dealing with transmission lines, but when we try to use waves to represent
things that no longer behave like transmission lines we can get into all sorts of trouble fast.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 07:09 PM

Cecil, IMHO, when the source sees an impedance R+jX at its output terminals it can't tell whether the Z is
obtained from a distributed virtual impedance, or from the same value of R+jX of lumped-constant elements.
The source still sees the same mismatch, and reduces the power delivery in exactly the same amount as with
the virtual load impedance. I don't understand why you believe there is a difference in operation between the
two different load impedances. Please explain in terms that I can comprehend.

Hi Walt, always good to hear from you. There is certainly a difference between the two different load
impedances. The IEEE Dictionary has two separate definitions, (B) and (C), for those two kinds of impedances.
For one thing, the physical one gets hot and virtual one doesn't. For another thing, one is (hopefully) radiating
power from an antenna and the other isn't. If the deaf, dumb, and blind source could really "see", it also could
tell the difference between two components vs the source end of the transmission line - but I digress.

The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves (forward+reflected) making it back
to the output device.

The argument is a simple one: In a system with reflections on the transmission line, I say the impedance seen
by the amp is a result of the superposition of the forward wave and the reflected wave. I say that mismatch
impedance is:

Zmismatch = Vnet/Inet = (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref) [bolded to indicate phasors/phasor math]

Assuming a 50 ohm source and Z0=50 ohm coax, the mismatch doesn't occur until the arrival of the reflected
wave, i.e. until the reflected wave arrives, the system is matched:

Zmatch = Vfor/Ifor = 50 ohms until the reflections arrive

If the mismatch causes the problem and the mismatch is caused by reflections, then reflections cause the
problem. In logic, if A causes B and B causes C, then it is valid to say A causes C. That's what the argument is
all about. Contrary to Tom's assertion, it seems valid to say that the mismatch at the amp is caused by
reflections.

VA3CQC 09-16-2010, 07:49 PM

I can't believe this ####storm is still going! We've got professional engineers arguing with radio amateurs,
over the laws of physics!

It'd be nice if we could toss out all the mud that's been slung over this thread. So lets go:
FACT: Impedance transformation does not cause power loss
FACT: We can usually assume a t-line is lossless at HF, for convenience
FACT: The transmitter looking into a mismatch consumes more current / creates a higher voltage than normal
FACT: The PI-output network is sufficient to match small reactances

SO WHAT ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT? I can't make sense of the last like seventeen pages of posts guys!
(It seriously reads like "OMG NO UR WORNG OHMS LAW SAYS V=IR" "WAT R U DUM? OHMS LAW SEZ I=V/R
WTF!?!?!?") Come on, can someone PLEASE start making some sense?

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 08:14 PM

The mismatch at the output port causes the problem, not standing waves making it back to the output device.

It doesn't matter what causes the loadline at the output device to shift, when it shifts the conduction angle,
voltage, and current are no longer the same.

Ever notice how often an argument changes from "That doesn't happen." to "So what if it does happen? It
doesn't matter." :) Here's why it indeed does matter.
1. The arrival of the reflected wave causes the load-line of the amp to change. The load-line of the amp is
obviously inside the source box.

2. It is impossible for the reflected wave to cause a change in the load-line of the amp unless reflected energy
has invaded the source box. Therefore, the reflected energy is NOT 100% reflected at the source box
connector. Does anyone besides me comprehend why it is indeed extremely important to know exactly what
causes the shift in the load-line inside the source box?

The reflected wave energy obeys the laws of wave physics. It can be dissipated, reflected, refracted, or
redirected during superposition/interference. Conceptually, we know all the possibilities for what has to
happen to the reflected energy. Trying to quantify the magnitudes of the known conceptual possibilities is a
measurement problem, not a problem with the laws of physics.

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 08:20 PM

We've got professional engineers arguing with radio amateurs, over the laws of physics!

It would be interesting to know who you consider to be professional engineers and who you consider to be
amateurs. :)

SO WHAT ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT?

We are arguing about whether reflected energy invades the source or not. It is my assertion that if the
reflected energy changes the load-line of the amp (located inside the source box) then reflected energy has
necessarily invaded the source. A circulator plus load resistor would have ensured that reflected energy did
not invade the source but such doesn't exist in any of our examples.

VA3CQC 09-16-2010, 08:36 PM

It would be interesting to know who you consider to be professional engineers and who you consider to be
amateurs.

We are arguing about whether reflected energy invades the source or not.

Don't worry, we are all amateurs here, only some of us are professionals! Can't rightly say till I see your ring.
=)

IMO it's a good distinction, if everything was done by the book many counterintuitive things would not have
been invented.

You never defined "The Source", whereas W2DU in his article, does. He states that he uses a Kenwood TS-
850. This is both a RF-generator AND a line-matching tuner. So it is your choice whether RF "invades" the PA.
In his article there was a marked increase in amplifier INPUT wattage (he did not alter the drive setting, this is
stated at the beginning), but on the same mismatched line this time with the reactance tuned out the power
consumption GOES BACK to its original state. This shows, at least to me, that that PI-tuner on the output does
shield the PA from the reflected wave.

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 08:42 PM

You never defined "The Source", ...

Mea Culpa. Consider the source that I am describing to be an amp designed to drive 50 ohms, like my IC-706,
IC-756PRO, and/or SG-500 amp.

Remember I said, "If the reflected wave changes the load-line of the amp ...". That's a conditional statement.
If the reflected wave doesn't change the load-line of the amp, then my statements don't apply.

W2DU 09-16-2010, 09:26 PM

Cecil, on the change in load line due to reflected power reaching the output of the tx, if you'll read my earlier
post you'll see that when the load is changed from a match to a mismatch, the load line indeed does change.
But when the pi-network is readjusted so that its output impedance is now the conjugate of the formerly
mismatched load, the load line returns to normal and plate voltage and current return to the same values as
when originally matched. So when discussing this issue, one must specify whether or not the mismatched load
is rematched by adjusting the network parameters.
Obviously, after rematching, the reflected power is totally isolated from the source upstream of the network.

Walt, W2DU

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 09:38 PM

Cecil, on the change in load line due to reflected power reaching the output of the tx, if you'll read my earlier
post you'll see that when the load is changed from a match to a mismatch, the load line indeed does change.
But when the pi-network is readjusted so that its output impedance is now the conjugate of the formerly
mismatched load, ...

Walt, the question is: Can reflected energy ever reach the source when a mismatch exists? There is NO pi-
network. There is NO conjugate match. This is NOT at all about your conjugately matched example. This
discussion is about e.g., an IC-706 (with no antenna tuner) driving a mismatched load.

W2DU 09-16-2010, 09:51 PM

Yes it can, Cecil. First, let's not talk about not having a pi-network to couple to the load. If we begin with the tx
matched to, say a 50-ohm dummy load, and then we change the load providing a mismatch to the network
output, the mismatched load affects the network in exactly the same manner as when the tuning adjustments
are changed by simply mistuning the network. In other words, if the reactance in the load is inserted into the
network, the effect is identical to having tuned the network away from the plate-current dip, changing the
reactance in the network by the same amount. Same effect on the loadline. So when those who say the
reflected power causes the tube to heat, it's only the effect of mistuning away from the plate-current dip that
increases the plate current, causing the plate to heat.

Walt

W5DXP 09-16-2010, 10:20 PM

First, let's not talk about not having a pi-network to couple to the load.

But Walt, with all due respect, that is what the present argument is all about. I believe it is impossible to
simply ignore the source/load mismatch that exists when the pi-network is not provided as it is not provided
by my IC-706. The only question that needs to be answered is: Does reflected energy ever affect the source's
load-line during a non-conjugately-matched condition? I hope that you agree that under mismatch conditions,
reflected energy does indeed make it all the way to the source.

W2DU 09-17-2010, 01:40 AM

Cecil, when I said let's leave out the pi-network I was thinking only of a tube amp, so considering omitting the
network doesn't make any sense.

So on the question of whether or not the reflected energy makes it all the way to the source, I believe there
are two ways of viewing that condition. 1) the reflected energy reaches the source, causing increased plate
current, or 2) the reflected energy that appears at the input of the xmsn line simply modifies the line-input
impedance, presenting a mismatch the same way an equivalent lumped-constant mismatch would appear to
the output of the network, simply mistuning the network, causing the plate current to rise in the same manner
as if the network were mistuned manually.

However, I vote for number 2 as to what I believe really occurs.

Walt

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 03:35 AM

... 1) the reflected energy reaches the source, causing increased plate current,or 2) the reflected energy that
appears at the input of the xmsn line simply modifies the line-input impedance, presenting a mismatch ...
However, I vote for number 2 as to what I believe really occurs.

Walt, with number 2, the incident reflected energy would somehow have to magically change directions at the
source output connector even though there may be 50 ohm coax on both sides of that connector, i.e. no
impedance discontinuity at the connector. That doesn't make sense to me. 1) makes a lot more sense, i.e. the
incident reflected wave flows straight through the source output connector on through any passive circuitry to
the active output device such that the superposition of the source wave and reflected wave forces the amp's
modified load-line at the plate/collector/drain.

Note that, depending on the magnitude and phase, the reflected wave reaching the plate/collector/drain and
Note that, depending on the magnitude and phase, the reflected wave reaching the plate/collector/drain and
superposing with the source wave can superpose to either an over-voltage or over-current condition (or
neither). The reflected wave just changes the designed-for load-line by a small amount or a large amount
depending on the magnitude and phase of the reflected wave.

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 12:22 PM

In other words, the effect upon the transistor is that same as that on the tubes. You just lack the built-in PI-
output network and instead have a direct connection to the feedline. I think you're being a but pedantic over
this, Walt here is making no distinction between the feedlines inside and outside the amplifier casing, as you
seem to be doing. The amplifier is a flexible abstract concept, not to be interpreted like this. The transistor
suffers the exact same voltage swing or increased current just like a tube under mismatch conditions, and if
you're not lucky enough to have an auto-tuner built in there is NOTHING the radio itself can do to remedy this.
Also I don't know if the measurements would be as clean and neat in an example like the TS-850 was.

K9AAN 09-17-2010, 01:16 PM

The resistance in the output side of the vacuum tube or transistor is REAL and it dissipates electrical energy
into heat.

The "resistance" in the transmission line, irrespective of type, is of two types. There is the real resistance of
the wire which is so small it has no major effect and is ignored. Then there is the artificial resistance called the
characteristic impedance and there-in is the key. It is an impedance not a resistance. This artificial resistance
comes from the Telegrapher's Equation and from the square root of the inductance (imaginary AND not real)
divided by the capacitance (imaginary and not real). Mathematically, the Zo turns out to be real but it is not
since it does not dissipate electrical energy into heat.

Then there is the Radiation Resistance of the antenna. Again, it is not real since it does not dissipate energy
into heat but rather into electromagnetic waves. They are not real but are handy in that they make the
equations come out the way we want them.

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 01:46 PM

The transistor suffers the exact same voltage swing or increased current just like a tube under mismatch
conditions, and if you're not lucky enough to have an auto-tuner built in there is NOTHING the radio itself can
do to remedy this. Also I don't know if the measurements would be as clean and neat in an example like the
TS-850 was.

Seems you misunderstood my intentions. All I was doing with the IC-706 example was getting rid of the
conjugate match established by the TS-850 pi-net output, i.e. I wanted a mismatch to see what happens to the
load-line. It doesn't matter if the example is a tube final or solid-state final, just that it is mismatched.

If you don't like the IC-706 example, assume a tube final with a fixed 50 ohm output. I believe that Kenwood
sold such a device but I can't remember the model number. It is my contention that, in a system with
reflections incident upon the source, that the reflected energy makes it all the way to the final and effects the
mismatched load-line.

W2DU 09-17-2010, 03:27 PM

Sorry, AAN, the output resistance of a tube amp with pi-network output coupling is a NON-dissipative R = E/I,
and does NOT dissipate energy into heat, including load-reflected energy incident on the output of the
network. The dissipative resistance in tube amps is the cathode-to-plate resistance that results in heating the
plate due to electrons impacting the plate, is upstream of the pi-network. This is one of the most
misunderstood concepts concerning the operation of RF amps, and is the chief reason why many cannot
believe that RF amps can have more than 50% efficiency when conjugate matched. Data from Terman, as
discussed in Chapter 19 in Reflections, proves this point. Also, please review Tom's statements on this issue in
one of his earlier posts. If you don't believe me or Terman on this issue, please believe Tom, because his
statements are correct.

And Cecil, if you review my experimental data observed in the TS-830S example, you'll see that the energy in
the reflected wave only misadjusts the network, because when readjusting the network after the mismatched
line has replaced the matched load, the load line returns to normal. This proves the reflected energy doesn't
reach the source, and that the network output sees only the impedance at the input of the line, the same as if
that impedance were either from a lumped-constant impedance or one with distributed constants. Another
reason the reflected energy doesn't reach the source is that the output resistance is non-dissipative, and re-
reflects the reflected energy instead of dissipating it. My experimental data proves this point. You'll also note
that when the network was readjusted after replacing the matched load with the mismatched line input, the
only change that occurred was the change in the capacitances in the network. The conditions in the source
were left unchanged, even though the reflected energy in the line still remained--unable to reach the source.
were left unchanged, even though the reflected energy in the line still remained--unable to reach the source.

Walt

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 03:59 PM

Nothing happens to the line itself. It combines with the (mismatched) transmission line to produce the product
of 50ohms + "however far off the line is from 50ohms". (Just like how in my HF2V vertical, the 1/4 wave 75
ohm line produces a product with the high impedance on 30 meters and changes it into a low impedance, 50
ohms) So the entire load+transmission line system will not be 50ohm, looking into the chunk of wire soldered
on the PA finals. The PI-output, in your case, is an adjustable load-line from the PA to the connector, that you
can use to offset a mismatched line. If it is absent, then you have no choice, the transmitter terminates in 50
ohms, which combines with whatever impedance the load is. You can't just measure one part of THE SYSTEM
and call it a day. You measure the tiny coax in the transmitter: it is 50 ohms, you measure the load+feedline:
it is, say, 30ohms +j8, the ANTENNA SYSTEM therefore is the combination of the two. It doesn't "affect" the
line, I would say the whole rest of the antenna system is affected BY IT!

So what is your opinion, what "happens" to this tiny transmission line embedded in the PA? How is your
understanding different from what I describe? If you're thinking you can run a 50ohm transmitter into a load
that's not 50ohms, you can do it for sure, but it won't result in an optimal solution and it is certainly not a
shortcut for using a tuner or tuned-antenna.

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 04:20 PM

i.e. I wanted a mismatch to see what happens to the load-line. It doesn't matter if the example is a tube final
or solid-state final, just that it is mismatched. ... It is my contention that, in a system with reflections incident
upon the source, that the reflected energy makes it all the way to the final and effects the mismatched load-
line.

Nothing alters the impedance of the components inside the radio. PI-outputs do exactly this, as do auto-
tuners. SWR doesn't change the impedance of the line either. Memristor is the ONLY device I know of that
changes its electrical parameters under load. So bearing this in mind, the line stays at 50 ohms, now and
forever. The transmitter outputs always assuming a 50ohm load.

W2DU has shown that WHEN (that's not IF but WHEN) reflected waves hit the PA, it causes a marked change in
performance characteristics. This doesn't change the impedance presented either.

What you're transmitting into causes a "bias"-like condition that requires the transmitter to overcome it with
more power, generating heat, and possibly operating out-of-spec. Transmitting like this is like spraying a
garden hose into the wind, some will get back in your face, but you ARE still spraying water in that direction. It
doesn't change the impedance of the line either, only the performance characteristics of the PA device in
question (tube or klystron or transistor or JFET or whatever)

W8JI 09-17-2010, 04:30 PM

The resistance in the output side of the vacuum tube or transistor is REAL and it dissipates electrical energy
into heat.

That's true. The time-varying anode-to-cathode resistance in the PA is indeed dissipative. There is no
argument, it produces heat.

It is NOT the impedance the tanks matches, but it is the impedance a plate modulator stage would match to.
This resistance is simply Ep/Ip, or the time-integrated value of anode-to-cathode resistance over the RF cycle.

The loadline is entirely different, and represents the time-varying RF E/I at the anode.

Confusing these two things is what tripped Eric up, when he said a class C amplifier had higher RF impedance
than a class A or class B amplifier. Reducing conduction angle, with no change in waveshape or peak current,
increases impedance but this would be the impedance seen by a plate modulator and not the loadline for RF.

A portion of the RF impedance can indeed be indirectly tied to dissipative resistance, but that portion is related
to efficiency in the dc to RF conversion process. I actually measured this using a reverse power generator in
an operating PA stage (operating at full power).

For the purposes of this discussion and the reflected wave model, the model works perfectly when we just
consider the reflected wave stopped at the tank output.

The "resistance" in the transmission line, irrespective of type, is of two types. There is the real resistance of
The "resistance" in the transmission line, irrespective of type, is of two types. There is the real resistance of
the wire which is so small it has no major effect and is ignored. Then there is the artificial resistance called the
characteristic impedance and there-in is the key. It is an impedance not a resistance. This artificial resistance
comes from the Telegrapher's Equation and from the square root of the inductance (imaginary AND not real)
divided by the capacitance (imaginary and not real). Mathematically, the Zo turns out to be real but it is not
since it does not dissipate electrical energy into heat.

Then there is the Radiation Resistance of the antenna. Again, it is not real since it does not dissipate energy
into heat but rather into electromagnetic waves. They are not real but are handy in that they make the
equations come out the way we want them.

Both resistances behave like a dissipative resistance, so far as everything except heat is concerned. An
alternator with a fixed excitation of the rotor is an example. If we had a very large amount of available power
turning the shaft, and we had a fixed flux level cutting the stator, we would have a power limited source that
would behave like a resistance. That resistance would be determined by the flux level alone if we maintained
a constant shaft speed.

If we varied secondary loading, we would find a resistance that provided maximum load power. This
resistance would equal the source resistance....of which most would be non-dissipative in an efficient system.
I've measured this also.

The notion a resistance or a thing that behaves like a resistance has to be dissipative or a resistor is just
wrong.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 05:05 PM

And Cecil, if you review my experimental data observed in the TS-830S example, you'll see that the energy in
the reflected wave only misadjusts the network, because when readjusting the network after the mismatched
line has replaced the matched load, the load line returns to normal.

Let's consider a transistor amp with a 50 ohm load line. The collector of the transistor goes directly to the
source output terminal 'x', with no output circuitry including no pi-network. (Well, maybe we need a series
capacitor) There is one foot of coax from the transistor collector to the source output connector at 'x'.

50 ohm
transistor---1'---x--------50 ohm coax-----------mismatched load
collector

The source delivers a forward wave. Only when the reflections arrive back from the mismatched load does the
load-line change. And the load-line doesn't change when the reflections arrive at point 'x' because there is
nothing to keep the reflected wave from passing through point 'x' and continuing into the source final. The
load-line changes only when the reflected voltage and current arrives at the transistor collector inside the
source box.

Another reason the reflected energy doesn't reach the source is that the output resistance is non-dissipative,
and re-reflects the reflected energy instead of dissipating it.

There's nothing in my theory that requires the reflected energy to be dissipated in the source. There's nothing
in my theory that prohibits the output resistance from being non-dissipative. The source could indeed re-
reflect the reflected energy. Point is that the reflected energy would have to be incident upon the source
before it could be reflected by the source. The reflection will NOT happen at point 'x', i.e. not at the source
connector!

The conditions in the source were left unchanged, even though the reflected energy in the line still remained--
unable to reach the source.

There is no argument and no doubt that the pi-net matching network can block reflections from reaching the
final. I'm not talking about conjugately matched systems. I am talking about systems that are mismatched at
the source. Looking again at the above example:

50 ohm
transistor---1'---x--------50 ohm coax-----------mismatched load
collector

Exactly how does the transistor sense when the reflections arrive back at point 'x', the source output
connector? The transistor is one foot away from point 'x'. Seems to me, the only way for the transistor to
sense the conditions at point 'x' is to wait for the reflections to reach the transistor. After all, there is
sense the conditions at point 'x' is to wait for the reflections to reach the transistor. After all, there is
absolutely nothing at point 'x' to stop the reflections from invading the source box. In order to predict the
impedance change at point 'x' at the instant it occurs, the transistor would have to be predicting the future or
communicating with point 'x' at faster than light speeds.

Seems to me, it is magical thinking to believe that the transistor can sense the impedance from a foot away
and adjust its load-line to compensate for that mismatch at exactly the instant that it occurs. Can it do the
same thing from ten feet away? 100 feet away? It seems that instead of being clairvoyant enough to remotely
sense the mismatch at point 'x' and pre-adjust its load-line accordingly, it is much more likely that the load-
line changes as a result of speed-of-light feedback from the mismatch which causes the shift in the load-line.
What travels at the speed of light back from a mismatch? Aha, reflected energy waves do that.

But of course, since signals travel faster than light using the lumped circuit model, the problem goes away.
Maybe that's why some people always retreat to that model.

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 05:10 PM

Nothing alters the impedance of the components inside the radio.

I can see that "what we have here is a failure to communicate". (from "Cool Hand Luke") Walt's adjustable pi-
network inside the radio does exactly that, alters the impedance of two variable capacitors and one variable
inductor. That's why I want to eliminate it from the circuit and consider the fixed mismatch conditions. I'm not
going to run my radio that way. It is for information and illustration purposes only.

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 05:37 PM

Seems to me, it is magical thinking to believe that the transistor can sense the impedance from a foot away
and adjust its load-line to compensate for that mismatch at exactly the instant that it occurs. Can it do the
same thing from ten feet away? 100 feet away? It seems that instead of being clairvoyant enough to remotely
sense the mismatch at point 'x' and pre-adjust its load-line accordingly, it is much more likely that the load-
line changes as a result of speed-of-light feedback from the mismatch which causes the shift in the load-line.
What travels at the speed of light back from a mismatch? Aha, reflected energy waves do that.

Why would you even suggest such a thing? No one said anything about transistors "auto adjusting" and I AND
WALT keep saying that the transistor performs just like a tube in this condition, we even know what will
happen: results in voltage spikes and excess current.

If you were able to strip off the reflected wave and divert it somehow, you'd find the transmitter will go full-
output with no problems. You won't see full input power on the antenna, because energy is being reflected
back down the coax, but not being RE-reflected back to the antenna, in this example. You could continue to
transmit forever in this condition, the only limit being how long the dummy load/RF sink will hold up.

So in a normal system, with a regular t-line: in the intervening time between when the forward wave is sent
and before the reflection hits, the transmitter is pumping out full power, happy as can be. As soon as the
reflected wave hits (like you said, it travels all the way through the system, ending up on the die of the PA
transistors with nothing in the way to stop it) the transistors see an increased load, have to consume more
current in order to keep going AT THAT DRIVE LEVEL.

Makes sense? I would go so far as to say: The impedance being not equal, all throughout the system,
produces a reflection. That reflection produces an abnormal state within the silicon/vacuum of the PA final,
which in turn consumes more power and produces more heat.

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 06:17 PM

Why would you even suggest such a thing? No one said anything about transistors "auto adjusting" ... Makes
sense?

Nope, I guess I am going to have to explain it in minute detail.

Here's the example where 'x' is the source output connector. From the ideal source tube/transistor to the
source connector is one foot of 50 ohm coax. From the source connector to the 600 ohm resistor is one foot of
50 ohm coax.

50 ohm Source---1'---x---1'---switched load resistors, 50 ohms to 600 ohms

Question: How long does it take for the 50 ohm source to adjust its load-line when the load is switched from
50 ohms to 600 ohms?

Answer from the lumped-circuit model: It takes no time at all, the load-line changes from 50 ohms to 600
Answer from the lumped-circuit model: It takes no time at all, the load-line changes from 50 ohms to 600
ohms at exactly the same instant that the load is switched from 50 ohms to 600 ohms.

Answer from the distributed-network model: Assuming a VF of 0.66 for the coax, it takes close to 6 ns for the
load-line to even start shifting from 50 ohms to 600 ohms when the load is switched from 50 ohms to 600
ohms.

Question: How does the lumped-circuit model look 6 ns into the future in order to know when the load resistor
has changed from 50 ohms to 600 ohms so the load-line can instantly change from 50 ohms to 600 ohms? Or
how does the lumped-circuit model manage to communicate load changes faster than the speed of light?
Please feel free to provide a valid answer.

Question: How does the distributed-network model know when to change the load-line? Answer: When that
changed load information is fed back to the source at the speed of light in the form of reflections on the 2 feet
of coax. The source signal superposes with the reflected signal to cause the new 600 ohm load-line. The
reflected signal causes the load-line to change from 50 ohms to 600 ohms.

Again I say: It is magical thinking to believe that the source can sense the change in loads at faster than the
speed of light. If we change the wire lengths from one foot to one inch, the round trip speed becomes 0.5 ns,
not zero.

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 07:03 PM

Oh man, you know what, screw it. I thought I had time to argue, but this is just a waste of my time. I'm
getting W2DU's book so I can educate myself on this matter and learn, THAT's the true gem in this thread.
I've learned alot already, but it's clear you've dug in your heels and aren't gonna move, so guess what: You
win, shall we throw you a party?

W2DU 09-17-2010, 07:50 PM

Quoting from VA3CQC:

"What you're measuring is that discontinuity in impedances, it produces a reflection! There's no "magic", the
transmitter simply isn't affected and doesn't care what impedance it is transmitting into, it sees a copper wire
and goes to town on it. Its only feedback is the reflected wave, which neither defines nor alters the
transmission line in any way."

As astute as you've already shown yourself to be, I don't think you really believe what you just said above.
Certainly the xmtr cares about what impedance it transmits into--that's what we're talking about. And although
it's true that the reflected wave doesn't alter the transmission line physically, it certainly alters the line
impedance appearng all along the line. We're not talking about Zc here, which IS determined by the physical
properties of the line.

And Cecil, I don't understand the need to discuss the time it takes for a load line to adjust--what does it
matter? In other words, how is it relevant? In addition, I'm not qualified to discuss the operation of transistor
amps--I'll have to stay with tube types with a pi-network, or other LC circuit, as the means for coupling the
output of the tube to its load.

It is still my position that when the output of the network sees a different load impedance than what it was
originally matched into, the different load impedance simply mistunes, or misadjusts the network in the same
way a network is mistuned by manually tuning away from the plate-current dip that was established during the
original matched condition. It is the mistuning of the network that results in the change in the load line and
increased plate current. Whichever of the two ways the network is mistuned, the result is the same, and does
not require the actual energy in the reflected wave to reach the source to do it.

Walt

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 08:34 PM

And Cecil, I don't understand the need to discuss the time it takes for a load line to adjust--what does it
matter?

This is the crux of the argument, Walt. Exactly what causes the load-line to adjust? Is it instantaneous magic
or is it speed-of-light cause-and-effect feedback from the load, i.e. reflections? Hint: The lumped-circuit model
does NOT obey the accepted laws of physics.

Whichever of the two ways the network is mistuned, the result is the same, and does not require the actual
energy in the reflected wave to reach the source to do it.
energy in the reflected wave to reach the source to do it.

Walt, the question remains: How does the source know that the network is mistuned unless it receives that
information in the reflections which means reflected energy is incident upon the source? Please describe the
method of communicating the mismatch all the way back to the source other than through reflected energy.

Steve, this might be a good time/place to join in with your expertise in communicating.

W2DU 09-17-2010, 09:00 PM

Cecil, the source knows the network is mistuned because its load, which is the impedance it sees at the input
of the network, is no longer resonant, providing an elliptical load line that increases the plate current while
reducing the power delivered. It doesn't matter which causes the mistuning, whether it's from the network
terminated in a mismatch, or from manually twisting the dials--the effect is the same. It further doesn't matter
whether the mismatched termination is due to reflected power superposing with the forward power at the input
of a transmission line or by an equivalent-impedance of a lumped-constant device. The same elliptical load
line will result in any of these conditions. I don't see the reflected energy reaching the source, except the
effect is has on the currents in the network, and thus the impedance the network presents to the tube plate.

Walt

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 09:24 PM

Cecil, the source knows the network is mistuned because its load, which is the impedance it sees at the input
of the network, is no longer resonant, ...

The fact of physics is that the load cannot know the network is mistuned in a time faster than the speed of
light delay from when the network was mistuned to when the source became aware of the mismatch which
was some time later. What caused the delay in the time from when the load changed to the later time to which
the source responded to the change? That delay cannot be faster than the speed of light. What is the
additional mechanism that can communicate at the speed of light other than the reflected waves? Why is some
other additional mechanism even needed? This is not a trick question. It is crucial that an answer be provided.
Do you have an answer? Exactly what mechanism is used to communicate the change in load impedance back
to the source at the speed of light? That communications must necessarily happen. Why do we need some
other explanation other than reflections?

I suspect you are stuck in the lumped-circuit model which allows violation of the speed-of-light limitation.
Sorry, reality does NOT allow such a violation.

VA3CQC 09-17-2010, 09:40 PM

Geez, why didn't you tell me I was way off base? Now I just look like a dork, I'll shutup now.

W5DXP 09-17-2010, 09:53 PM

Geez, why didn't you tell me I was way off base? Now I just look like a dork, I'll shutup now.

Maybe you are not to blame for not understanding what was posted. Maybe the people doing the postings
were not clear in what they were asserting. I'll bet you don't understand me when I say: "Ah rekon Ah'm
gonna amble over yonder directly". :)

W2DU 09-17-2010, 10:04 PM

Jeff, I didn't think you were serious with the statement I criticized!! C'mon, you're otherwise ssying the right
things--don't go away!!

Walt

W2DU 09-17-2010, 10:24 PM

Cecil, I didn't bring up the lumped-constant model--the subject was initiated earlier by someone else. But is
seems to me that it is fair game for comparison with the impedance derived from a line with distributed
constants.

As to the physics of the situation I didn't know there was any fact of physics determining the speed at which
the source is aware of what's occurring in the network. It may not be a trick question, but you haven't let on
as to the significance of the speed. What is this law of physics? And why does the lumped-constant impedance
as to the significance of the speed. What is this law of physics? And why does the lumped-constant impedance
violate this law that I never heard of, while the distributed-constant version doesn't?

The network input is connected directly to the plate--does there need to be any additional mechanism for the
network to communicate with the plate? Cecil, I sincerely hope you haven't begun to fall off the edge of a cliff-
-I would hate to see that happen to such a nice guy as you.

Walt

W5DXP 09-18-2010, 04:28 AM

What is this law of physics? And why does the lumped-constant impedance violate this law that I never heard
of, while the distributed-constant version doesn't?

The law of physics is the speed of light limit. The source cannot know that the load has changed faster than
the speed of light. If the load is 6 inches away from the source, the source cannot know the load has changed
faster than about 1/2 nanosecond - and reflections travel at the speed of light.

Quoting a reference from Dr. Corum's paper: "The failure of any lumped element circuit model to describe the
real world lies at its core inherent presupposition: the speed of light is assumed infinite in the wave equation
(all regions of the universe can be communicated with instantaneously)."

This mental error is exactly the reason that some people believe reflected energy doesn't invade the source
while I cannot think of any other possible mechanism besides reflections for the source to know that the load
has changed.

In the real world, when the load is switched from matched to mismatched, there is a speed of light delay
between the load being switched and the source sensing that the load has been switched. What exactly is the
physical communications mechanism that allows the source to know that the load has been switched at some
earlier time? I say the source cannot know that the load has been switched until reflected energy arrives at
the source and changes the source's load line from matched to mismatched. If I am right, reflected energy
always invades the source because there is no other way for the source to know that the load has been
switched.

If reflected energy invading the source is not the communications mechanism that the load has been switched
from matched to mismatched, exactly what is the mechanism? It cannot be magic.

50 ohm Source------100' 50 ohm coax------load switched from 50 ohms to 600 ohms

What is the delay between the load being switched and the change in the source's load-line? It's about 150 ns.
What mechanism of physics causes the load-line to change? I say it is when the reflected signal superposes
with the source signal at the source.

Now change the coax to 6" long. The delay changes to about 3/4 ns but the mechanism remains exactly the
same. Now change the wire to 1" long. The delay changes to about 0.1 ns but the mechanism remains exactly
the same.

The speed of light delay between the load being switched and the load-line changing proves that reflected
energy is directly affecting the load-line. That may not be obvious but it is true.

W5DXP 09-18-2010, 01:27 PM

Walt, what I am saying should be able to be proven mathematically. I'm headed out on a camping trip, will
take a closer look at the math, and report back tomorrow. In the meanwhile, consider the following for a
class-A amp.

1. No matter how large or how small the distance from the source to the load, it is always a finite distance
over which electronic signals cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It doesn't matter if the delay is 0.1
ns or 100 ns or more. The same thing happens in each case, just with different timing.

2. When driving a matched load, the load line impedance is Vmatch/Imatch. At the instant the load impedance
is switched from a match to a mismatch, the source is still supplying Vmatch/Imatch. There is a finite delay
before the source senses that the load has been changed and then changes its load-line from matched to
mismatched. What causes the delay?

3. It is obvious that the source cannot sense what load impedance it is driving until a delay time after the new
load is switched in, i.e. sensing is limited to light speeds. It is obvious that there is some feedback mechanism
from the load to the source to convey the load information back to the source at the speed of light. What is
that feedback mechanism?
4. Instead of magic faster than light thinking or inventing a new phenomena, it seems more than likely that
the feedback from the load to the source is in the form of a reflected wave, traveling at the speed of light in
the medium, which invades the source box and superposes with the matched load-line.

5. The matched forward voltage and forward current are in phase (assuming a matched resistive load). The
reflected wave's voltage and current are 180 degrees out of phase. The phasor superposition of those two
signals is the cause of the new mismatched load-line. The new load-line will be:

ZLL = (Vmatch+Vref)/(Imatch+Iref) = Vmismatch/Imismatch

where bolding is used to indicate phasors/phasor-math

Again, I am not talking about conjugately-matched systems where the source impedance is Vmatch/Imatch. I
am talking about a mismatched source.

W2DU 09-18-2010, 04:00 PM

Cecil, if the delay you're talking about is that in which the forward wave travels the length of the xmsn line,
sees a mismatched load, and then the additional delay while the reflected wave returns to the source, that's
the natural course of events. So why is it relevant in how the source sees the change? If the network is
delivering power to a matched load, either lumped or distributed, and then the load is switched to the
mismatched impedance of a lumped load, the result is still no different than manually mistuning the network
away from resonance by changing the capacitances in the network.

Walt

PS---have a good camping trip.

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 03:36 AM

Cecil, if the delay you're talking about is that in which the forward wave travels the length of the xmsn line,
sees a mismatched load, and then the additional delay while the reflected wave returns to the source, that's
the natural course of events. So why is it relevant in how the source sees the change?

Walt, it is not only important how the source sees the change it is extremely important when the source sees
the change. In the following example, assume one foot of coax is a negligible percentage of a wavelength:

50 ohm source---1 foot coax---load switched from 50 ohms to 600 ohms

Lumped-circuit model: The load line of the source switches from matched to mismatched at exactly the instant
that the switching occurs. It takes zero time for the source to (magically) sense the change. There is no speed
of light limitation with the lumped-circuit model. There are no reflections because reflected waves traveling at
the speed of light don't exist in the lumped-circuit model. There is only a (magical) instant reaction from the
source's load-line at exactly the time the switching occurs.

Distributed network model: Assuming a VF of 0.66, there is an approximately 1.5 ns delay between the
switching at the load and the sensing of that switching at the source. That is the time it takes a reflection from
the mismatch to first reach the source and effect a shift in the load-line from matched to mismatched. The
shift is caused by superposition of the matched load-line with the reflected wave and the phasor math
equations look like:

From: Zload-line = Vmatch/Imatch = Zmatch

To: Zload-line = (Vmatch+Vref)/(Imatch+Iref) = Zmismatch

It is impossible for the source to sense a change in the load faster than the speed of light. The conveyer of the
change information is the reflected wave traveling at the speed of light which effects the load-line change at
the time when the reflected wave is incident upon the load line and not before.

AB0WR 09-20-2010, 11:30 AM

Cecil,

"It is impossible for the source to sense a change in the load faster than the speed of light. The conveyer of
the change information is the reflected wave traveling at the speed of light which effects the load-line change
at the time when the reflected wave is incident upon the load line and not before."

You are indulging in the argumentative fallacy of the "False Dilemma".

You are indulging in the argumentative fallacy of the "False Dilemma".

*When* the impedance change is seen is irrelevant. You are trying to make it into something important. It
isn't.

The load line of the amp changes WHENEVER the load impedance changes. It doesn't matter if that change is
seen *now* or 6ns from now. It changes when it changes. You are trying to make the "when* into a proof of a
position even though it isn't important at all.

It doesn't matter if the transmission line goes directly to the plate lead of the tube or if it goes to directly to
the output plate of the pi-network tuning capacitor. The tube load line will change when the impedance it is
working against changes.

Consider this: Does the impedance at the source end of a transmission line change to its final value when the
first reflection is seen from a changed load?

tim ab0wr

W8JI 09-20-2010, 12:05 PM

Cecil,

"It is impossible for the source to sense a change in the load faster than the speed of light. The conveyer of
the change information is the reflected wave traveling at the speed of light which effects the load-line change
at the time when the reflected wave is incident upon the load line and not before."

You are indulging in the argumentative fallacy of the "False Dilemma".

*When* the impedance change is seen is irrelevant. You are trying to make it into something important. It
isn't.

The load line of the amp changes WHENEVER the load impedance changes. It doesn't matter if that change is
seen *now* or 6ns from now. It changes when it changes. You are trying to make the "when* into a proof of a
position even though it isn't important at all.

It doesn't matter if the transmission line goes directly to the plate lead of the tube or if it goes to directly to
the output plate of the pi-network tuning capacitor. The tube load line will change when the impedance it is
working against changes.

Consider this: Does the impedance at the source end of a transmission line change to its final value when the
first reflection is seen from a changed load?

tim ab0wr

To add to Tim's point, the Q of the tank system and the way the tube or output device interacts with the tank
requires several RF cycles just to stabilize the waveform at full amplitude. Every tug on the tank by the time-
varying resistance of the output device adds a little more energy into the tank. This is why we can't run high Q
tanks in pulse amplifiers, and why the conduction angle and time varying anode to cathode resistance does
not determine the RF impedance of the tube.

Trying to analyze things using wave theory outside of transmission lines, particularly in inductors and output
tanks, is a waste of time.

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 12:40 PM

*When* the impedance change is seen is irrelevant. You are trying to make it into something important. It
isn't.

The load line of the amp changes WHENEVER the load impedance changes. It doesn't matter if that change is
seen *now* or 6ns from now. It changes when it changes. You are trying to make the "when* into a proof of a
position even though it isn't important at all.

When it takes 6ns for the load-line to change something real has traveled from the load to the source in 6ns.
Otherwise, the source would not know that the load had changed. Exactly what travels from the load to the
source in 6ns? Besides a reflected wave, what can perform that speed-of-light feat?

When the change is detected by the source relative to when the change occured is extremely important when
one is trying to track the reflected energy in the reflected wave. That you don't comprehend the importance of
when is irrelevant. Because a delay exists in reality, we must ask the question: What caused the delay
between the load changing and the source's detection of the change. The lumped-circuit model does not allow
between the load changing and the source's detection of the change. The lumped-circuit model does not allow
speed of light delays. The fact that a delay exists invalidates the reflected energy conclusions drawn from the
lumped-circuit model, e.g. that reflected wave energy does not invade the source. Since that real-world delay
exists, we must necessarily answer the question: How does the load communicate impedance information
back to the source by some (as yet unstated) mechanism besides reflected waves?

It is the inability of the lumped-circuit model to take speed-of-light delays into account that causes the
following false statements to be asserted.

1. Reflected wave energy does not make it past the source connector.

If reflected energy does not make it past the source connector, how does the source ever detect a change in
the load? What other mechanism of physics, besides reflected energy, comes into play? It is crucial that this
question be answered. If not reflected energy, then what is the mechanism of communications between the
load and the source.

2. Replacing the transmission line's impedance with a lumped-circuit impedance proves that reflected energy
doesn't enter the source.

If there is any delay at all between the change in load impedance and the response of the source, the above
statement is false - and the delay is never zero because there is no possible way for the source and the load
to occupy exactly the same space. If the distance between the source and load is one 1/1000 of an inch, the
speed-of-light delay can be calculated at about one picosecond. Now, one picosecond may seem negligible to
an engineer who doesn't care where the reflected energy goes but one picosecond is all important to a
physicist trying to track the reflected energy. The fact that the delay is never zero proves that reflected
energy enters the source.

3. Switching from the distributed-network model to the lumped-circuit model when the delay is small is a valid
thing to do.

No, it's not a valid thing to do if one is trying to track reflected energy. The fact that the delay is not zero is
what renders the lumped-circuit model invalid for tracking reflected energy. The very existence of a non-zero
delay proves that, contrary to popular belief, reflected energy is entering the source.

Anyone for whom that fact is not intuitively obvious should wade through the match and explain how the load
communicates information to the source through some mechanism other than the reflected wave. I have
presented that speed-of-light communications method from the load to the source as being the reflected
wave. Nobody has offered any other method but instead have just said, "It doesn't matter", which is not an
acceptable answer.

Seems to me, we can assert that reflected wave energy reaches the source by the process of eliminating any
other phenomena of EM physics capable of performing that speed-of-light feat.

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 01:39 PM

Trying to analyze things using wave theory outside of transmission lines, particularly in inductors and output
tanks, is a waste of time.

Now we have gone from - 1. It doesn't happen - to 2. It does happen, but it doesn't matter - to 3. It is a waste
of time, a last resort diversionary argument designed to avoid answering the question.

Incidentally, the load does not "tug" on the source. The load furnishes speed-of-light feedback information to
the source through reflected EM energy. The feedback from the load is what causes changes in the source.
There is no other speed-of-light phenomena known to physics that could cause changes in the source other
than reflected energy feedback.

The load is obviously communicating with the source using speed-of-light signals. Electrons cannot travel at
the speed of light. Only photonic traveling wave/field energy could be accomplishing that communications feat
and the only energy that exists are in the forward and reflected waves/fields bouncing between the load and
the source causing the transient conditions that you describe in the tank circuit. Thanks for the additional
example of forward and reflected EM traveling wave/field energy inside the source. EM energy cannot stand
still in an RF circuit. It is either moving forward or moving in the reverse direction.

Your description of the transient state delay before the source settles down is even more proof that forward
and reflected energy is rampant inside the source. What phenomena causes the communications from the
load to the source that causes all those "tug on the tank" transient delays? There is none of Einstein's "spooky
action at a distance" in your example. All communications between the load and the source is EM
forward/reflected fields/waves. That is true when there is any speed-of-light delay present. Point is that there
is no other known communications method besides forward and reflected energy that could be at work in an
RF circuit.
RF circuit.

Note that I am not proposing any quantitative answers. I am presenting qualitative conceptual answers based
on the laws of physics. If the photonic EM energy bouncing around inside a source at speed-of-light delays is
not forward and reflected energy, exactly what is it? Please be specific.

Hint: All of the transient signals moving at the speed-of-light in the circuit that you describe prove the
presence of EM waves/fields by proving the presence of photons, i.e. the presence of forward and reflected
waves/fields rampant inside the source circuitry. If there were no reflected wave/field energy feedback from
the load all the way to the source, the source conditions would never change away from the matched
condition.

So it isn't a waste of time because it proves all EM transient phenomena is caused by forward and reflected
field/wave energy inside the source. It disproves the contention that reflected energy stops at the source
output connector. There is no impedance discontinuity at the source output connector to cause 100% re-
reflection of the reflected waves to occur.

AB0WR 09-20-2010, 03:33 PM

Cecil,

" There is no other speed-of-light phenomena known to physics that could cause changes in the source other
than reflected energy feedback."

Once again you are offering up the False Dilemma argumentative fallacy.

*When* it happens isn't important. You can argue till you are blue in the face but it really doesn't matter.

If Alpha Centauri goes supernova at this very instant does it matter to us? Answer: NO. We will be affected
whenever we are affected.

If the impedance at the output of the load capacitor changes 6ns, 60ns, or 60 years after you change the load
it *still* doesn't matter.

In fact, as JI points out, because of tank circuit action if you change the load and then change it back within
one RF cycle, the tank circuit will keep the tube from even seeing it -- even though there will be a different set
of reflected waves on the line for a measurable amount of time.

Using your posit this couldn't happen. The "reflected wave" would *have* to be seen by the tube. Only if
lumped components act differently than transmission lines would the tube not see the change in the load. If a
tank circuit didn't work this way then you could never use a Class C amp and get a full RF cycle out of the
tank.

The very fact that you can simulate transmission lines with lumped components without having to have the
lumped components separated by the same physical length as the transmission line would lead most people to
understand that there is a distinct difference between lumped components and transmission lines.

tim ab0wr

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 05:07 PM

*When* it happens isn't important. You can argue till you are blue in the face but it really doesn't matter.

Tim, I am sorry that you are unwilling or incapable of comprehending the importance of some delay vs the
zero delay required by the lumped-circuit model. If you were a physicist, you would understand immediately
the importance. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I. Saying that, "it really doesn't matter", is
exactly the same as saying that, "cause and effect doesn't matter".

Simply put, if a delay exists, the lumped-circuit model is invalid and reflected energy is what causes any
change in the load-line of an amplifier. It cannot do that unless it (reflected energy) is incident upon the load
line which proves that reflected energy is flowing inside the source. That's what the present argument is all
about. The delay indicates when the reflected energy is first incident upon the amp's load-line. If the delay is
not zero, i.e. the load-line doesn't change exactly when the load is changed, the lumped-circuit model is
invalid for telling us anything about the reflected energy.

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 06:10 PM

*When* it happens isn't important.

Tim, if you want to prove that to be a true statement, you necessarily must prove that the source can change
Tim, if you want to prove that to be a true statement, you necessarily must prove that the source can change
its load-line at exactly the same time the load impedance is changed as required by the lumped-circuit model.
If you cannot do that, wouldn't you agree that it's time to question your position?

This challenge is not just for Tim. For all of you who believe that the source's load-line can change
instantaneously every time the load impedance is changed, please prove it because that is what is required
for no reflected energy to be flowing in the source.

AB0WR 09-20-2010, 06:31 PM

Tim, I am sorry that you are unwilling or incapable of comprehending the importance of some delay vs the
zero delay required by the lumped-circuit model. If you were a physicist, you would understand immediately
the importance. Perhaps someone else can explain it better than I. Saying that, "it really doesn't matter", is
exactly the same as saying that, "cause and effect doesn't matter".

Simply put, if a delay exists, the lumped-circuit model is invalid and reflected energy is what causes any
change in the load-line of an amplifier. It cannot do that unless it (reflected energy) is incident upon the load
line which proves that reflected energy is flowing inside the source. That's what the present argument is all
about. The delay indicates when the reflected energy is first incident upon the amp's load-line. If the delay is
not zero, i.e. the load-line doesn't change exactly when the load is changed, the lumped-circuit model is
invalid for telling us anything about the reflected energy.

Cecil,

Why did you ignore the fact that if you change a load and change it back within one RF cycle that the tube
won't even see the change because of the tank action?

Where did the reflected wave GO?

The delay in that case is INFINITE!

Yet the reflected energy obviously exists on the transmission line for at least some period of time.

And no one said cause and effect don't matter. That is just one more false dilemma you are offering up. Alpha
Centauri going supernova would have one heck of an effect on us -- but it doesn't matter one iota when that
effect happens. It will happen when it happens.

Tell us where that reflected energy goes in the transmitter when it lasts less than an RF cycle, Cecil.

Don't just ignore the issue. Address it directly.

AB0WR 09-20-2010, 06:55 PM

"Tim, if you want to prove that to be a true statement, you necessarily must prove that the source can change
its load-line at exactly the same time the load impedance is changed as required by the lumped-circuit
model."

No, I do NOT need to prove that. No one on this thread has offered such a proposition up.

This is a STRAWMAN of your own making that you are trying to beat the stuffing out of while claiming it isn't
your own strawman.

Not DU or JI or myself have said this.

" If you cannot do that, wouldn't you agree that it's time to question your position?"

No, because this isn't our position -- it's a position YOU made up that you want to attribute to us.

The fact that I say that it doesn't matter WHEN it happens is the exact opposite of this position. I am saying
that the timing is irrelevant -- PERIOD. That doesn't require it to be instantaneous in any way, shape, or form.

"This challenge is not just for Tim. For all of you who believe that the source's load-line can change
instantaneously every time the load impedance is changed, please prove it because that is what is required
for no reflected energy to be flowing in the source."

No one is going to prove this because no one is saying this.

It is NOT required for no reflected energy to be flowing in the source.

It is NOT required for no reflected energy to be flowing in the source.

What happens to the reflected energy that lasts less than one RF cycle when it hits a tank circuit? What
happens when it lasts less than 1/2 of an RF cycle?

That's what *YOU* need to prove to make *your* position tenable that a reflected wave will always flow
through the lumped components to the source.

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 07:58 PM

The fact that I say that it doesn't matter WHEN it happens is the exact opposite of this position. I am saying
that the timing is irrelevant -- PERIOD. That doesn't require it to be instantaneous in any way, shape, or form.

If the timing is irrelevant, as you say, then (logically) it could be zero just as easily as any other value. You
above statement (logically) indeed does include zero delay time because you certainly did NOT exclude it. If
you would like to exclude zero time from your above statement please feel free to do so but realize that such
an exclusion would enhance my distributed-network side of the argument.

The lumped-circuit model requires zero delay time. If you exclude a zero delay time from your assertions
then you are discarding the lumped-circuit model and essentially, by process of elimination, supporting my
distributed network side of the argument.

That's what *YOU* need to prove to make *your* position tenable that a reflected wave will always flow
through the lumped components to the source.

Of course, any implication that I ever said such a thing is pure BS. I am one of the biggest supporters ever for
Walt's conjugate match blocking reflected power from reaching the source. If you can produce the posting
where I said "a reflected wave will always flow through the lumped components to the source, even in a Z0-
matched system", I will send you a check for $1000. Of course, if you cannot find such an assertion, you have
to send me a check for $1000 or at least admit that your ethics leave something to be desired.

W2DU 09-20-2010, 08:22 PM

Cecil, unless i'm missing something I've never encounted before, this is the first time in our many years of
corresponding that I have to totally disgree with you concerning reflected energy invading the source when
discussing RF amplifiers.

In spite of reviewing your lengthy discourse above, the following is my firm belief of what occurs with a
mismatched load on the amps' source:

Let's begin with the amp loaded into a match. We also have two identical mismatched loads available to switch
to the output of the amp after having been loaded into the match. The two separate mismatched loada are 1)
a lumped-constant device comprising RL&C, and 2) a transmission line whose input impedance is identical to
that of the lumped constant.

First, the lumped-constant mismatched impedance is switched in rapidly, replacing the matched load. The
source load line changes as soon as the effect of the new load travels through the tank circuit, which takes a
few cycles. Certainly not the speed of light.

Second, the distributed-constant mismatched impedance is switched in rapidly, replacing the matched load in
the same manner as the lumped-constant load, with exactly the same results, also taking a few cycles in
travel through the tank.

In other words, I'm saying that the difference between the two different mismatched loads with respect to the
effect on the source is zero--the effects are identical.

At this point I'd like to throw a concept into the discussion that no doubt will get Cecil's undies twisted. This
concept is that the lumped-constant load also initiates a reflection at the source-load junction. (Ignore the
xmsn line from the output terminal to the network terminal.) Let's again say the source is adjusted to deliver
all its available power into a matched load. We then instantly change the load to the lumped-constant device.
At this time the source delivers a reduced level of power to the mismatched load by the amount of power
reflected according to the power reflection of the mismatch.

Let's consider a practical example. Assume the original matched condition has a system impedance of 50
ohms, and the mismatched loads are ZL = 30 - j40 ohms in both cases. The voltage reflection coefficient rho
= 0.5, thus the power reflection coefficient is 0.25. Let's also assume the original source power delivered into
the matched load is 100 watts. The power reflected by the mismatched loads is thus 25 w, which then causes
the source to reduce its power delivered by 25 w, leaving 75 w absorbed by the mismatched load. IMHO, the
case for no reflection from a lumped-constant load isn't consistent with the facts.
case for no reflection from a lumped-constant load isn't consistent with the facts.

W2DU

W5DXP 09-20-2010, 08:48 PM

.At this point I'd like to throw a concept into the discussion that no doubt will get Cecil's undies twisted. This
concept is that the lumped-constant load also initiates a reflection at the source-load junction.

Dang Walt, I think you are confusing Tom's position with mine. That's exactly what I have been saying
throughout this thread that you and others seem to have been disagreeing with. Do you realize the
implications of such a statement? Hint: Reflections are not allowed in the lumped-circuit model! Exactly what
prohibits the mismatched reflections from flowing straight through the source output connector and becoming
incident upon the source's load-line? IMO, nothing prohibits that from happening.

What I have been saying is: There is no section of the system, including the source's load-line, that is free of
reflected energy when the source is mismatched.

Sorry, but it seems to me that this posting of yours has reversed your previous position which blows my mind.

W2DU 09-20-2010, 10:43 PM

No, No, Cecil, I haven't reversed my position--I think you've misunderstood my post above. I have never
asserted that a lumped-constant impedance causes no reflections. I've just waited to see what others have
said on this issue. I have always been of the opinion that lumped-constant devices engender reflections if their
impedances are mismatches to the system impedance.

But this doesn't disagree with my position that reflected energy incident on the output coupling network of the
source doesn't reach the source, except as it mistunes the coupling network. The only concept discussed here
that I disagree with is that the reflected energy directly invades the source, which as I understand your
position, is that it does.

W2DU

WA9CWX 09-21-2010, 01:53 AM

This whole issue may make me give up using coax forever.

AB0WR 09-21-2010, 08:44 AM

Folks, don't let Cecil confuse the issue here.

Unless he can tell us what happens to a reflected wave that is less than an RF cycle long when it hits a lumped
circuit tank then he is the one with a time/magic issue here.

If a lumped circuit tank can *always* be treated as a transmission line then that reflected wave should
*always* be transmitted to the source, no matter how long it actually lasts.

If that reflected wave that is less than a cycle long is NOT transmitted to the source then something else has
to have happened to it for it certainly appears on the transmission line connected to the tank circuit.

If that reflected wave that is less than an RF cycle *is* transmitted to the source then Cecil also needs to
explain how a Class C amp transmitting an RF pulse less than a cycle long can use a tank circuit to generate a
full cycle of RF. For if the lumped circuit tank can transmit a reflected wave less than an RF cycle long to the
source then it should also be able to transmit an RF pulse less than a cycle long from the source to the
transmission line.

The fact that we know the tank circuit doesn't transmit a partial pulse of RF to the transmission line but,
instead, transmits a full cycle of RF can only lead to the conclusion that the lumped tank circuit is NOT acting
purely as a transmission line.

So, Cecil, are you claiming magic is at work here? That a tank circuit can transmit a reflected wave less than a
cycle long from the transmission line to the source but can't transmit a forward wave less than a cycle long
from the source to the transmission line?

Or is something magic happening to that less than a cycle long reflected wave at the tank circuit that keeps it
from being transmitted to the source while a reflected wave longer than a cycle *does* get transmitted?

Don't keep running away Cecil.

Don't keep running away Cecil.

Tell us what happens in a lumped circuit tank circuit when a less-than-a-cycle reflected wave is seen on the
transmission line.

tim ab0wr

W5DXP 09-21-2010, 12:40 PM

But this doesn't disagree with my position that reflected energy incident on the output coupling network of the
source doesn't reach the source, except as it mistunes the coupling network. The only concept discussed here
that I disagree with is that the reflected energy directly invades the source, which as I understand your
position, is that it does.

Walt, I agree with your first sentence above - so you appear not to understand my position. Here it is again
for the Nth time.

1. Matched systems - If the source load-line is operating at the designed-for slope, the system is matched and
ZERO reflected energy is reaching/invading the source, i.e. reflected energy is blocked from reaching the
source. This statement includes all systems whose matching networks have been properly adjusted for a Zg-
match, a Z0-match, or a conjugate match. Example: A source designed to drive a 50 ohm load driving 1/2WL
of 50 ohm coax terminated with a 50 ohm resistor.

2. Mismatched systems - If the load-line is operating relatively far away from the designed-for slope (away
from the matched condition), the system is mismatched - reflected voltage/current is reaching the source and
superposing with the source voltage and current. The load-line only changes when feedback to the source is
present in the form of reflected energy incident upon the source. Reflected voltage/current is the only thing
that can change the load line. Example: A source designed to drive a 50 ohm load driving 1/2WL of 50 ohm
coax terminated with a 600 ohm resistor.

In a matched system, reflected energy is blocked from being incident upon the source. That is the purpose of
matching. The source load-line assumes the designed-for slope (or relatively close to it). This is the most
likely case for amateur radio systems.

In a mismatched system, reflected energy is incident upon the source. The subsequent superposition of
source signal and reflected signal changes the source load-line relatively far away from the designed-for
slope.

My main point: Reflected energy incident upon the source is the only thing that can change the load-line away
from the designed-for slope. There is no other way for the source to sense a mismatch except for reflected
energy feedback to occur. The feedback from the load to the source cannot travel faster than the speed of
light, i.e. the feedback cannot take zero time.

Three things can happen when reflected energy is incident upon the source.
1. The reflected signal can be re-reflected at the source back toward the load.
2. The reflected signal can undergo destructive interference at the source and be re-distributed back toward
the load.
3. The reflected signal can be attenuated (dissipated).

What happens to the reflected energy is dictated by the magnitude of the above three phenomena all of which
must add up to 100% of the reflected energy. By adjusting the circuit design and magnitude/phase of the
reflections, it is possible to maximize or minimize any one or two of the above three possibilities.

A special case of interference is when the reflected wave arrives 90 degrees out of phase with the source
wave. Since cos(90) = 0, there is no interference. If there are also no reflections (Z0=Zsource) then 100% of
the reflected power is dissipated in the source resistor (Source configuration supplied by W7EL). Such a
special case is discussed in the following paper:

http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm

W5DXP 09-21-2010, 01:05 PM

Unless he can tell us what happens to a reflected wave that is less than an RF cycle long when it hits a lumped
circuit tank then he is the one with a time/magic issue here.

Tim, I don't have time to educate you on Fourier Analysis (through which you apparently slept) so I will
recommend one of my college textbooks as a good reference:

Higher Mathematics for Engineers and Physicists, by Sokolnikoff.

Simply put, the partial cycle breaks up into the fundamental frequency which superposes with the rest of the
fundamental frequency energy and most likely becomes unmeasurable. It might cause a short transient blip if
it is large enough and makes it to the source. The harmonic frequencies are attenuated by the low-pass
filtering in the output network and probably never make it to the source.

So, Cecil, are you claiming magic is at work here?

No, and your irrelevant attempts to divert the main issue are noted. It's the lumped-element circuit model that
requires magical thinking. Again quoting Dr. Corum:

"The failure of any lumped element circuit model to describe the real world lies at its core inherent
presupposition: the speed of light is assumed infinite in the wave equation (all regions of the universe can be
communicated with instantaneously)."

The fact that the load-line changes under steady-state mismatched conditions is proof that reflected
voltage/current has made it to the source. There is no other way for the source to detect a mismatch.

AB0WR 09-21-2010, 04:01 PM

Tim, I don't have time to educate you on Fourier Analysis (through which you apparently slept) so I will
recommend one of my college textbooks as a good reference:

Higher Mathematics for Engineers and Physicists, by Sokolnikoff.

Nice ad hominem.

BTW, the Fourier Transform is between the time domain and the frequency domain. So even you are reduced
to "lumped circuit" theory in order to provide an answer. You just throw out the distance part of the wave
equation because it is convenient.

Nice.

Simply put, the partial cycle breaks up into the fundamental frequency which superposes with the rest of the
fundamental frequency energy and most likely becomes unmeasurable. It might cause a short transient blip if
it is large enough and makes it to the source. The harmonic frequencies are attenuated by the low-pass
filtering in the output network and probably never make it to the source.

"Unmeasurable"? That's magic right there!! Why would it become unmeasurable? Wouldn't that depend on the
phase? It could double or cancel based on superposition or anything in between!

First you want us to believe that the voltage across a capacitor can never reach the source voltage because
e^(-t) requires infinite time to reach zero and then you try to use the vague term "unmeasurable"?

And what in Pete's name is a short "blip"? Who doesn't understand Fourier Analysis? A short blip *has* to
have higher order components in order to *be* a blip! So how does the "blip" get through the filtering?

You are still waving your hands and saying "magic" with all this. It's nothing more than mumbo-jumbo using
technical terms.

No, and your irrelevant attempts to divert the main issue are noted. It's the lumped-element circuit model that
requires magical thinking. Again quoting Dr. Corum:

"The failure of any lumped element circuit model to describe the real world lies at its core inherent
presupposition: the speed of light is assumed infinite in the wave equation (all regions of the universe can be
communicated with instantaneously)."

The fact that the load-line changes under steady-state mismatched conditions is proof that reflected
voltage/current has made it to the source. There is no other way for the source to detect a mismatch.

Cecil, exactly what is the characteristic impedance of a coaxial transmission line when it is too short to exhibit
the capacity required for a line of its characteristic impedance, i.e. (D/d)? Or, alternatively, what is the
characteristic impedance of a coaxial transmission line when it is too short to have the inductance required for
a line of its characteristic impedance, i.e. (D/d)?

Is it still a transmission line? Or just a lumped component with a certain C and a certain L?

You speak of unmeasurable and then try to use the fog of "infinite speed"?
You speak of unmeasurable and then try to use the fog of "infinite speed"?

The wave equation is a function of time *and* space. I.e. it has terms dx *and* dt in it. When dV/dx becomes
small enough that it approaches zero closely enough that the incremental difference can no longer be
measured then *exactly* what do you have except an equation in terms of time with distance not involved?

If you can't measure the difference then does it exist? You want to say that it *does* exist when it suits your
argument and then turn around and say that it *does NOT* exist when it suits your argument!

If the distance between the input capacitor of the tank and the tube is so short that you simply cannot
measure any voltage difference based on the distance then how are you supposed to analyze the circuit
except using just the time component?

And then you have the hutzpah to speak of "steady-state"? In steady-state there *is no* information to
communicate! So how does that have anything to do with anything?

And you *still* haven't answered what happens to that reflected wave when it hits the tank circuit. All you've
done is wave your hand and say abracadabra!

W5DXP 09-21-2010, 05:59 PM

Why would it become unmeasurable?

Of course it depends on the sophistication of the measurement equipment. Do you really think 100 ns of
reflected power would show up on a Bird wattmeter? Good luck on that one.

A short blip *has* to have higher order components in order to *be* a blip!

All that has to happen for reflected energy to reach the source during a transient condition is:

(Vfor1)(rho1) <> (Vref2)(tau2), where '<>' means "not equal".

When those two terms differ in amplitude or phase for any reason, total destructive interference cannot occur
and reflected voltage gets through to the source. If you understand s-parameter equations, it is when

s11(a1) <> s12(a2)

You are still waving your hands and saying "magic" with all this. It's nothing more than mumbo-jumbo using
technical terms.

If you don't understand that the presumption of faster than light speeds by the lumped-circuit model is
magical thinking, please review the laws of physics.

Cecil, exactly what is the characteristic impedance of a coaxial transmission line when it is too short to exhibit
the capacity required for a line of its characteristic impedance, i.e. (D/d)?

Sometime ago, a physicist worked out the length of coax required to establish the Z0 environment. It was less
than one inch. It is a rare amp that has less than one inch of wire between the source and the output
connector. A Bird wattmeter's truline is long enough to establish a 50 ohm environment.

When dV/dx becomes small enough that it approaches zero closely enough that the incremental difference can
no longer be measured then *exactly* what do you have except an equation in terms of time with distance
not involved?

Since it is impossible for the source and load to occupy the same space, dv/dx cannot go to zero in the real
world. The best we can do in the real world is delta-v/delta-x where x cannot go to zero and the speed of light
is inviolate. That means no matter what the separation between the source and load is, it is never zero. What
is the length of the path from the amp to the output connector in the average amplifier? Hint: no matter how
much magic you try to introduce into the real world, it doesn't work.

And then you have the hutzpah to speak of "steady-state"? In steady-state there *is no* information to
communicate!

Correction: there is no change in information to communicate but there is continuous communication of

information. No change is information. In a mismatched system, the forward wave is continuously
communicating with the load and the reflected wave is continuously communicating with the source. A lack of
communicating with the load and the reflected wave is continuously communicating with the source. A lack of
communication would obviously be a change in information.

And you *still* haven't answered what happens to that reflected wave when it hits the tank circuit.

Each component in the tank causes reflections so the situation gets too complicated to quantize. That's why I
left the tank circuit out of my examples. What we can say is that if the tank circuit is not providing a match,
reflected energy reaches the source. I believe that is what Walt said.

AB0WR 09-21-2010, 07:48 PM

"Of course it depends on the sophistication of the measurement equipment. Do you really think 100 ns of
reflected power would show up on a Bird wattmeter? Good luck on that one."

"Since it is impossible for the source and load to occupy the same space, dv/dx cannot go to zero in the real
world."

I didn't say it went to zero. I said it got so close to zero that you couldn't measure it.

You are still trying to argue that it is a measurement issue when it benefits you and that it isn't a
measurement issue when it doesn't benefit you.

Can *you* measure the voltage difference between two ends of a one-inch long piece of coax due to the
*distance* part of the wave equation and not the time part of the equation?

There isn't any time-domain reflectometer capable of differentiating such a small measurement.

"Each component in the tank causes reflections so the situation gets too complicated to quantize."

And *I* am the one invoking magic?

You can't analyze the situation but we are supposed to believe *your* handwaving because it is *YOU* doing
the hand waving?

ROFL!!!

tim ab0wr

W5DXP 09-21-2010, 08:21 PM

Can *you* measure the voltage difference between two ends of a one-inch long piece of coax due to the
*distance* part of the wave equation and not the time part of the equation?

Strange question considering that if time is taken into account, the lumped-circuit model falls apart.

There isn't any time-domain reflectometer capable of differentiating such a small measurement.

Strange that you attack me for exactly the same argument concerning reflected power measurements. Please
make up your mind one way or another. You cannot be allowed to have it both ways.

Even if the small measurement cannot be measured, it can be calculated. The phase shift in one inch of 0.66
VF coax at 4 MHz is ~0.185 degrees. I suppose that one million dollars of measurement equipment could
measure such a change in phase. Do you want to pony up or should I? :)

"Each component in the tank causes reflections so the situation gets too complicated to quantize."

And *I* am the one invoking magic?

I didn't say it was too complicated to be conceptualized. If one wanted to spend an exorbitant amount of time
and money proving a foolish notion to be wrong, it could be done. I just don't choose to waste my valuable
time/money doing such. All of those foolish notions of yours are obviously false to the most casual observer.

We are getting bogged down in minute unimportant details. The question is: Does reflected energy reach the
source when the source is unmatched? The answer is yes (no matter what magical thinking you attempt to
introduce while defending your favorite guru).
W2DU 09-21-2010, 11:28 PM
Cecil, I'm sorry to see that you still maintain that the reflected energy somehow invades the source, which is
upstream of the pi-network. I have experimental proof that it doesn't. This proof appears in post #32 in this
thread, and also in Chapter 19 of Reflections 3.

But before going to the proof, consider this. We know that the output resistance, R = E/I, and is therefore
non-dissipative (because a ratio cannot dissipate energy). Thus when the network output is matched to the
input impedance of the line, all reflected energy incident on the output of the network is totally re-reflected
toward the mismatched load. Consequently, none of the reflected energy reaches, or invades the source.

Now let's introduce a slight mismatch, including some reactance, between the network output and the input to
the line. This allows a little reflected energy to enter the network. What happens to that small amount of
reflected energy on entering the network? Does it go on through the network and invade the source? No! It is
still totally re-reflected in the forward direction. How do we know that? For one reason, going from a matched
condition, where no energy enters the network, just a small change allowing a small amount of reflected
energy into the network isn't going to result in a dramatic change in the condition that would allow that amount
of energy go through the network and into the source. Keep in mind that the output resistance, though now
containing some reactance, is still non-dissipative, re-reflecting the reflected energy, and certainly the
reactance now contained in the output impedance isn't going to dissipate any energy, but instead helps re-
reflect the reflected energy.

The effect of the reactance appearing at the line input, as it enters the network, simply changes the otherwise
straight load line into an elliptical load line. The result is an increase in plate current due to the mistuning,
while also reducing the delivery of power and efficiency.

Now we come to the experimental data that proves the point. The reference data was taken with the xcvr
delivering 100w into a 50-ohm resistive load. Then the matched load was replaced with the complex
mismatched load. The mismatch is approximately 3:1, which yields a voltage reflection coefficient of 0.5, a
power reflection coefficient of 0.25, and a power increase factor of 1/(1-rho^2), which equals 1.333. I now
quote from post #32:

"8. Readings on a Bird 43 power meter now indicate 95w forward and 20w reflected, meaning only 75 watts
are now delivered by the source and absorbed in the mismatched load. The 20w reflected power remains in
the coax, and adds to the 75 watts delivered by the source to establish the total forward power of 95w."

These data show that the ~3:1 reactive mismatch caused the source to deliver 25w less power than when
matched. The data also shows that no reflected power entered the network, other than the line reactance that
caused the loadline to change from straight to elliptical, causing the increase in plate current, also indicated by
the data. Further proof is that when the network has been retuned to re-establish the match, the plate current
returns to normal and the 100w of power delivered by the source is now absorbed by the mismatched,
reactive load.

Cecil, I hope this data will help you understand why reflected energy doesn't make it through the network to
invade the source. And I also repeat, that when left in the mismatched condition, the effect on the network is
the same, whether the mismatch was engendered by distributed constants, lumped constants, or by simply
manually mistuning the network.

Walt

KD8GFC 09-22-2010, 12:49 AM

Im so tired of seeing this thread. WHO CARES ??? Lock it.

W5DXP 09-22-2010, 03:13 AM

Cecil, I hope this data will help you understand why reflected energy doesn't make it through the network to
invade the source.

Consider that the source won't change its load-line unless it gets some sort of feedback yet we know that it
does change its load-line in response to a mismatch. So we must ask: What is the nature of the feedback that
causes the source's load-line to change because of a mismatch? Please consider that question and provide an
answer that doesn't involve reflections.

AB0WR 09-22-2010, 11:16 AM

W2DU,
If the reflected wave was NOT reflected at the tank circuit then the impedance on the line would never
represent the actual load impedance.

The impedance on the line is developed from a *series* of reflections from the load end of the transmission
line and re-reflections at the source end of transmission line. This is what the "bounce diagram" is meant to
represent.

If you never have this series of reflections and re-reflections then the actual load impedance never gets fully
represented on the transmission line.

It is this *impedance* of the transmission line caused by the reflections and re-reflections that has an effect
on the tube load line.

tim ab0wr

AB0WR 09-22-2010, 12:00 PM

Cecil,

"We are getting bogged down in minute unimportant details. The question is: Does reflected energy reach the
source when the source is unmatched? The answer is yes (no matter what magical thinking you attempt to
introduce while defending your favorite guru)."

The answer is NO, it doesn't.

See my latest post.

If the reflection goes through the tank circuit and get modified in any way, as even you claimed that it would,
then there is no way for the load impedance to affect the SWR on the transmission line as theory suggests.

That SWR is the result of a never-ending series of reflections and re-reflections. If you interrupt that series of
reflections and re-reflections then you will substantially change the SWR shown on the line from what it should
be.

The fact that the SWR *does* change as theory suggests shows that the series of reflections and re-
reflections *does*, in fact, occur.

That means that the re-reflections *must* occur at the tank circuit.

If you could measure the tube load line quickly enough you would see it making discrete changes as the
reflections and re-reflections change the impedance seen at the end of the transmission line.

Think about it and then tell us how the SWR on a transmission line can be calculated based on the load if the
reflections on the transmission line are changed by traversing the tank circuit and being changed by the
traverse even if they are fully reflected at the tube instead of being dissapated?

Are you suggesting that a wave traveling through a tank circuit is not impacted symmetrically? That it gets
changed in one direction and restored in the other direction?

Or is it just more "magic"?

W5DXP 09-22-2010, 12:34 PM

What is the nature of the feedback that causes the source's load-line to change because of a mismatch?

Consider the following tube transmitter with an adjustable pi-net output. It will be easier to understand if we
assume class-A operation.

http://www.w5dxp.com/tubpinet.JPG

Assume the tube has a preferred load-line, the one for which it was designed. Let's call that load-line a Zg-
match. Let's call any other load-line a Zg-mismatch.

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume ideal conditions. At key-down, the tube sends a signal from point 'X' to
point 'Y' which takes one nanosecond to get there. If the impedance at point 'Y' equals Zg-match, there will be
no reflections from point 'Y' back to point 'X' and the tube continues with the Zg-match load-line. No feedback
from point 'Y' causes the tube to continue with the same Zg-match load-line.

If the impedance at point 'Y' is not equal Zg-match, how does the tube know that fact? It can only know what
If the impedance at point 'Y' is not equal Zg-match, how does the tube know that fact? It can only know what
the impedance at point 'Y' is if the tube gets some sort of feedback from point 'Y' and that feedback cannot
reach point 'X' for another one nanosecond. What is the nature of the feedback that tells the tube that point 'Y'
is not equal to Zg-match and is instead equal to Zg-mismatch so that the load-line can be changed from Zg-
match to Zg-mismatch? What else could it possibly be except reflected voltage/current? Please be specific.

I am surprised that the lumped-circuit model has caused so many otherwise intelligent people to completely
miss this simple concept.

W5DXP 09-22-2010, 02:27 PM

It is this *impedance* of the transmission line caused by the reflections and re-reflections that has an effect
on the tube load line.

OK, given the location of that impedance, how is the magnitude/phase of that impedance communicated over
the physical distance back to the tube at no faster than the speed of light so that the tube can adjust its load-
line? Please be specific.

If the reflection goes through the tank circuit and get modified in any way, as even you claimed that it would,
then there is no way for the load impedance to affect the SWR on the transmission line as theory suggests.

You misunderstand what I have said. I didn't say all of the reflected energy reaches the source under
mismatched conditions, just that enough reflected energy reaches the source under mismatched conditions to
cause the load-line to change. Your above statement is simply false. The SWR on the line is 100% dictated by
the Z0 of the line and the Z of the load. Whether reflected energy is incident upon the source or not has ZERO
effect on the SWR on the transmission line.

rho = (Zload-Z0)/(Zload+Z0)

SWR = (1-rho)/(1+rho)

Absolutely no mention of a source or power levels.

OTOH, if zero reflections reach the source, as you assert, there is nothing to cause a change in the load-line
away from the matched condition, but we know a change in the load-line happens as a result of a mismatch.
So exactly how does the source know to change its load-line from matched to mismatched if it gets zero
feedback from the mismatched load? Please be specific.

That SWR is the result of a never-ending series of reflections and re-reflections. If you interrupt that series of
reflections and re-reflections then you will substantially change the SWR shown on the line from what it should
be.

I agree and nothing that I have said contradicts your statement above. Given all of that happening, there is
nothing to prohibit some steady-state reflected energy from reaching the source and affecting the load-line.
Exactly what else can change the load-line besides reflected voltage/current? How else does the source know
to change the load-line besides reflected voltage/current traveling at the speed of light back from the
mismatched load which is some distance away. Are you suggesting "spooky action at a distance" or magic or
what?

If you could measure the tube load line quickly enough you would see it making discrete changes as the
reflections and re-reflections change the impedance seen at the end of the transmission line.

I agree and you continue to miss the point. For the tube load-line to make those discrete changes, it must
have feedback from the changing impedance that it is driving. Otherwise the load-line wouldn't change. That
impedance is some distance away. For the source to even know that the impedance is changing, some sort of
feedback must occur from the changing impedance back to the load-line. Exactly what is the nature of the
feedback from the changing impedance located some distance away from the load-line? Given that feedback
is necessarily photonic in nature, i.e. limited to the speed of light, what could it possibly be except reflected
voltage/current? Are you introducing a brand new phenomenon in the field of physics? If so, why?

Tim, you and others are going to laugh at yourselves when this very simple concept finally soaks in. Let me
say it again. In my schematic example, the V/I ratio (impedance) at point 'Y' changes one nanosecond before
point 'X' can possibly detect that V/I change in impedance. What is the nature of the feedback from the new
V/I at point 'Y' back to point 'X' that takes 1ns and allows (causes?) V/I to change at point 'X'? Please show
your equations.

At t0 at point 'Y', Vy/Iy changes from Vold/Iold to Vnew/Inew

At t0 at point 'Y', Vy/Iy changes from Vold/Iold to Vnew/Inew

At t0 at point 'X', Vx/Ix equals Vold/Iold

At t0+1ns at point 'X', Vx/Ix changes from Vold/Iold to Vnew/Inew

It obviously took 1ns for the feedback involving the V/I change at point 'Y' to reach point 'X'. What is the
nature of the feedback that travels at the speed of light from Point 'Y' back to Point 'X' in 1 ns?

AB0WR 09-22-2010, 03:58 PM

Cecil,

1. You've changed the argument. Move Point Y to be at the same place you have marked as the "Load". The
discussion has been as to whether the reflection from the load traverses the tank circuit. You are now trying to
argue as to whether there is a reflection at Point "Y" from the driving source signal. That's a totally different
argument.

2. You didn't answer my question at all.

If a reflected wave that is incident at the point you have labeled as the "Load" traverses the tank circuit to
Point "X" and gets changed by the intervening tank circuit then how does the impedance at Point "Load" ever
become representative of the actual impedance at the far end of the transmission line? How does the SWR on
the transmission line ever even approach what theory says it should? How does a bounce diagram for the
transmission line ever begin to give the right answers?

I am beginning to suspect that I will never get an answer from you about this question. Trying to reconcile
actual SWR values on the transmission line with your claim that the reflection from the load travels all the way
to the tube *DOES* seem to be an impossible task.

I think Walt has explained how this all works, maybe in 2004? If there is a complex conjugate match at Point
"Load" then there has to be total re-reflection of the wave returning from the mismatched load or otherwise
nothing works right. This is a totally separate issue from what happens between the tube and the tank.

AB0WR 09-22-2010, 04:06 PM

"OK, given the location of that impedance, how is the magnitude/phase of that impedance communicated over
the physical distance back to the tube at no faster than the speed of light so that the tube can adjust its load-
line? Please be specific."

Cecil,

You keep trying to force this False Dilemma as if it *means* something.

The load line is based on impedance seen by the tube from the matching network. If the impedance presented
by the network changes because a change is needed to match a different impedance presented by the
transmission line then the tube sees that different impedance.

That will affect the conditions seen between the tube and the tank but it doesn't mean that the reflected waves
from the changed load are traveling all the way to the tube.

tim ab0wr

AB0WR 09-22-2010, 04:28 PM

"You misunderstand what I have said. I didn't say all of the reflected energy reaches the source under
mismatched conditions, just that enough reflected energy reaches the source under mismatched conditions to
cause the load-line to change. Your above statement is simply false. The SWR on the line is 100% dictated by
the Z0 of the line and the Z of the load. Whether reflected energy is incident upon the source or not has ZERO
effect on the SWR on the transmission line."

Oh, give me a break.

The reflection coefficient can also be calculated from the impedances and the reflection coefficient can be used
to calculate the VSWR.

The VSWR is certainly dependent upon the reflected energy -- by definition. That means that the SWR is
*also* dependent on the reflected energy.
W2DU 09-22-2010, 06:36 PM
Tim, the SWR on the line is determined only by the Zo of the line and the terminating impedance. What
happens at the source is irrelevant to the SWR, except as to the voltage, current and power levels on the line.
In other words, it doesn't matter how much or how little re-reflection occurs at the source, the SWR on the line

is a constant, regardless of the re-reflections--the source plays NO part in the ratio of the standing wave.

Walt

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 01:11 PM

I'm working on an article for my web page which will contain the following information.

We hams and other RF types are not free to invent rules for amateur radio that violate the known laws of
physics. If we have shortcuts and models that violate the known laws of physics, we must acknowledge that
fact (or bury our heads in the sand). We have seen such responses as: "It doesn't matter" and "It's a waste of
time". Consider the following generalized case:

Source-------some distance 'L'----------Load

The generalized load doesn't have to be an antenna - the above load seen by the source could be the tank
circuit. Any location at which an impedance discontinuity exists can be considered to be the "Load". The
following discussion will be about how RF energy is transferred from one place to another.

RF energy, which travels at the speed of light, is known to consist of photons. This applies to RF fields and
waves. There is no other method of transferring RF energy from one place to another at the speed of light
except through photonic fields and waves. The free electron carriers move much too slowly to transfer energy
at the speed of light so the photons win by process of elimination.

Since the source and load cannot occupy the same space, they must necessarily be located some distance, L,
apart. With photons traveling at the speed of light (in the medium) that associates a delay time, delta-t, with
the time it takes for a photon to travel from the source to the load. The magnitude of the separation distance
and delay time doesn't matter. This is a general discussion about the concepts involved in RF energy transfer.

Note that L/delta-t always equals the speed of light in the medium and that neither L nor delta-t can ever be
zero. (If L and delta-t were ever zero, the term L/delta-t would be undefined).

Ideally, the source initiates a forward traveling field/wave that is incident upon the load delta-t later. If the
load accepts all of the RF energy, no reflections occur and there is zero RF energy flowing back toward the
source. The source "assumes" that the load is accepting all of the RF energy because there are no reflections.

If the load does not accept all of the forward RF energy, some energy will be reflected back toward the
source. However, the source will not "know" that the load is rejecting energy until 2 delta-t times have passed
(the time it takes the forward wave to make a round trip to the load and back). The reflected energy incident
upon the source is in the form of a reflected RF field/wave again consisting of photons. The reflected
voltage/current superposes with the load-line in the source to create a new load-line.

For purposes of discussion, the original load-line can be considered to be the default matched load-line while
the new load-line can be considered to be the mismatched load-line. In any case, any deviation from the
default (matched) load-line is caused by reflected energy no matter what is the length L because we know that
L cannot equal zero.

There is no other known mechanism in the field of physics that can cause a change in the default load-line
besides reflected energy feedback from the load.

It is obvious that some folks on this newsgroup believe that RF energy can travel faster than the speed of light
because that's one of the presuppositions of the lumped-circuit model but that presupposition is known to be
false and a violation of the speed of light limit. There is always a delay between the source's initial forward
wavefront and the feedback information from the load. The feedback information must necessarily involve
reflected energy because there is no other method known to physics for obtaining that feedback information,
especially at faster than light speeds as required by the lumped-circuit model. The source simply cannot
"know" that the load has changed at faster than light speeds.

W2DU 09-23-2010, 02:43 PM

Cecil, as I have said repeatedly, the load line can be changed from the default condition by simply detuning
the network by misadjusting the plate tuning capcitor. In this case the load line can be made to be precisely
the same slope as when the output of the network is mismatched due to reflected energy. The loadline cannot
tell the difference. This shows that the loadline can be changed without reflected energy from a mismatched
load. Consequently, Cecil, I must disagree with your position that there is no other known mechanism in the
field of physics that can change the default loadline besides reflected energy feedback from the load.

Walt

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 07:25 PM

Cecil, as I have said repeatedly, the load line can be changed from the default condition by simply detuning
the network by misadjusting the plate tuning capcitor. In this case the load line can be made to be precisely
the same slope as when the output of the network is mismatched due to reflected energy. The loadline cannot
tell the difference.

When one detunes the network, one destroys the conjugate match and allows some reflected energy, that was
previously 100% re-reflected back toward the load, to become incident upon the source. The load-line cannot
tell the difference because there is no difference and exactly the same incident reflected phasors are incident
upon the source in both cases.

If it's not the reflected phasors that are incident upon the source, exactly what mechanism of physics does the
detuned network use to tell the source to change its load-line? What kind of energy exists besides the forward
fields/waves and the reflected fields/waves?

W2DU 09-23-2010, 08:04 PM

Cecil, If you'll again review my post #32, you'll see that detuning the network doesn't allow reflected energy
to reach the source, because that energy is still re-reflected. Remember, the output resistance of the amp is
non-dissipative, and thus re-reflects reflected energy, because it cannot absorb it. In addition, the reactance
in the mistuned network is also non-dissipative, and cannot absorb the reflected energy. Result--all the
reflected energy is still totally re-reflected and unable to reach the source. The increase in plate current
resulting from the mistuning is because the load line is now elliptical instead of straight--as a load on the plate
the network no longer presents the same load as prior to the mistuning.

Walt

KD8GFC 09-23-2010, 08:20 PM

Why dont you guys agree to disagree this is going NOWHERE !!!

W8JI 09-23-2010, 08:25 PM

Why dont you guys agree to disagree this is going NOWHERE !!!

Just don't read it.

KD8GFC 09-23-2010, 09:10 PM

Just don't read it.

Well OK....... :eek:

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 09:39 PM

Just don't read it.

Tom, your insistence that current travels through a one foot long 75m loading coil, with a VF of 0.03, in 3 ns is
based on the belief that RF energy can travel faster than the speed of light. Walt's insistence that a source can
shift its load-line without reflected phasors being incident upon the source is based on the belief that RF
energy can travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than light speeds are required by the lumped-circuit
model with which we all have been brainwashed from an early age. Why don't we all just agree that nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light?

W4PG 09-23-2010, 09:47 PM

Please keep the comments respectful of others. Agree to disagree if necessary but don't personally attack
others. Some of you are close to needing a time out.
.............Bob

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 10:00 PM

Cecil, If you'll again review my post #32, you'll see that detuning the network doesn't allow reflected energy
to reach the source, because that energy is still re-reflected. Remember, the output resistance of the amp is
non-dissipative, and thus re-reflects reflected energy, because it cannot absorb it.

Walt, how does the reflected energy get reflected at the source if it is never incident upon the source? That
sounds like a catch-22 to me. Exactly what is your definition of "reach"? I have been using "reach" as a
synonym for "incident upon".

For instance, I would say that some of the energy is reflected from a mismatched load when the forward
energy reaches the load, i.e. gets to the load, i.e. is incident upon the load.

I have been arguing that the source load-line cannot change unless reflected energy is incident upon the
source. Please don't tell me that we have been arguing over the definition of the word, "reach". When I reach
Houston, I can stop at the city limits and never enter Houston.

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 10:08 PM

Please keep the comments respectful of others. Agree to disagree if necessary but don't personally attack
others.

Sorry, I'm probably the offender - too much wine in the afternoon coupled with a sense of humor akin to Don
Rickles, e.g. “Who picks your clothes - Stevie Wonder?” :) My apologies if I have offended anyone.

W5DXP 09-23-2010, 10:29 PM

Why dont you guys agree to disagree this is going NOWHERE !!!

Because the disagreement is almost never over technical facts. After all, a fact is a fact. If we agree on
technical facts, then what is the argument all about? It is good to get an answer to that question and it is
almost always a semantic problem, a misunderstanding that can indeed be resolved assuming that we don't
simply "agree to disagree" and leave a festering problem cowardly unresolved.

W2DU 09-24-2010, 12:27 AM

Cecil, I consider the source to be the tube, upstream of the pi-network. The point in the system where the re-
reflection occurs is at the output terminals of the pi-network, because this is point where the output resistance
of the network is R = E/I. To reiterate, the ratio E/I cannot absorb the reflected energy, so it must re-reflect
it. If the network contains reactance, either from mistuning or from reactance appearing at the input of the
mismatched feedline, the output impedance of the network is still non-dissipative, and still re-reflects all
reflected energy incident on the output terminals of the network. I hope we're now on the same page
regarding where the source is located. Like on the edge of Houston, when we're in the network we're only on
the edge of the source, but not quite in it.

Walt

G3TXQ 09-24-2010, 10:49 AM

Cecil,

I've been quietly following the debate :)

I have this question based on what I believe you are saying:

Let's take a typical solid-state PA module comprising a single-ended pre-driver stage, followed by a push-pull
driver stage, and then a push-pull final stage. If the PA is connected through a TL to a load which undergoes a
step change in value, it seems obvious that the push-pull final will not "see" that change until the reflected
wave arrives back at the source.

But here's my problem: where, exactly is the source?

The step change in the load-line of that final stage will cause a change to its input impedance, and that will
appear as a step change in the load-line of the driver stage; in turn that will cause a change to the load-line of
the pre-driver stage. and so on. The effects will diminish as we move back along the stages, but they are
the pre-driver stage. and so on. The effects will diminish as we move back along the stages, but they are
there nonetheless.

Are you claiming that the reflected wave "reaches" back into the Tx through all stages in the chain? If not,
what "communicates" the change to those earlier stages, according to your model?

I'm not sure if your model requires us to view all activity within the Tx in terms of wave mechanics!

73,
Steve G3TXQ

W8JI 09-24-2010, 10:52 AM

Tom, your insistence that current travels through a one foot long 75m loading coil, with a VF of 0.03, in 3 ns is
based on the belief that RF energy can travel faster than the speed of light. Walt's insistence that a source can
shift its load-line without reflected phasors being incident upon the source is based on the belief that RF
energy can travel faster than the speed of light. Faster than light speeds are required by the lumped-circuit
model with which we all have been brainwashed from an early age. Why don't we all just agree that nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light?

Cecil,

The reason I do not engage any topic with you is you tend to re-write and intentionally misquote what other
people say. This makes it impossible to have civil technical discussion.

I never said or implied, and Roy Lewallen never said or implied, anything travels faster than light. Walt has
not said that, and no one else I'm aware of has said that.

Please stop publically inventing statements and attributing them to others.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 12:07 PM

I never said or implied, and Roy Lewallen never said or implied, anything travels faster than light.

Tom, Because the loading coil discussion is off topic for this thread, I'm starting a new thread titled: Delay
through a loading coil, which will begin with a quote of your above posting.

In that thread, I will prove that you have implied that current travels faster than the speed of light through
your 100 turn, 2" dia, 10" long, 75m loading coil.

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 01:41 PM

To reiterate, the ratio E/I cannot absorb the reflected energy, so it must re-reflect it.

Walt, that E/I ratio is equal to (Vfor+Vref)/(Ifor+Iref), bolded to indicate phasors/phasor-math. If the
reflected waves do not see a physical short, open, or pure reactance at the tuner output, not all of the
reflected energy will be re-reflected. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point and probably
cannot proceed with this discussion because of the impasse. The question is: How does an E/I ratio cause a
reflection at one point but not at another point?

In a matched system, it can be proved that some of the reflected energy makes it to the tuner input capacitor
where it is re-reflected at the 50 ohm Z0-match. You are correct that there is a reflection at the impedance
discontinuity caused by the capacitor on the output of a network (tuner) but it is only a partial reflection. There
is another reflection caused by the coil and yet another reflection caused by the capacitor on the input of the
network. The 50 ohm Z0-match which eliminates reflections in a matched system is at the input capacitor, not
at the output capacitor. Here's a diagram of a network (tuner) in a matched system:

no reflections--input--a--Cap--b--Coil--c--Cap--d--output---reflections

It can be shown that reflections exist at points b, c, and d, but not at point a. If it helps, put a one-wavelength
piece of lossless transmission line between the tuner components and see what happens.

If that 50 ohm Z0-match doesn't exist, as it doesn't in a mismatched system, reflected energy proceeds to
become incident upon the source. If the source load-line changes during a mismatch, reflected energy is
incident upon the source because, in the real world, there is nothing else that can cause a change in the
source load-line, (assuming that the final amp is not readjusted). Here's a diagram of a network (tuner in a
mismatched system).

reflections--input--a--Cap--b--Coil--c--Cap--d--output---reflections

A simple Bird directional wattmeter reading will show reflections at point a. Reflections exist at every point in
the mismatched network. If the source load-line shifts away from the matched case, then in the real world,
reflected energy has to be incident upon the source.

There is no proof that an E/I ratio, by itself, is sufficient to cause a reflection, e.g. there are E/I ratios all up
and down a transmission line that do not cause reflections. There is lots of proof that it takes a physical
impedance discontinuity to cause a reflection and unless that physical impedance discontinuity is a physical
open, short, or pure reactance, only partial reflections are possible. When all of the reflected energy reverses
direction at an impedance discontinuity that is not a physical short, open, or pure reactance, wave cancellation
between two complimentary waves is involved as well as re-reflection of the single reflected wave.

W8JI 09-24-2010, 02:08 PM

It's best to let it go Walt.

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 02:24 PM

Are you claiming that the reflected wave "reaches" back into the Tx through all stages in the chain? If not,
what "communicates" the change to those earlier stages, according to your model?

Of course, that's a pretty complicated question so let's see what we know about electronic system physics.
Let's say we have a matched system and switch the impedance of the load to a mismatched condition.

You seem to agree that the newly arrived reflected voltage/current phasors can change the slope of the load-
line in the source which causes conditions to change back upstream, as you described. There is necessarily
something flowing back upstream delivering information to the other stages at the speed of light in the
medium. What is the nature of that electronic communications?

If that communications impulse is traveling at the speed of light in the medium, the communications must
necessarily be in the form of photons because electrons cannot travel that fast and there is no other carrier of
electronic information besides photons that could accomplish that information transfer in a simple electronics
circuit. (There may be other esoteric quantum effects that can accomplish that information transfer but I
believe we can ignore such for our discussion here).

Now we need to make a list of all phenomenon capable of transferring information back upstream providing
feedback to a number of electronic circuits at the speed of light in the medium. There are only two directions
of RF energy flow in a circuit, forward and rearward. What do we call photons that are traveling rearward?
Reflected energy? Using the process of elimination, what else could it be?

Seems to me that not only do the incident reflections cause a direct change in the load-line of the source, but
also ripple back through the drive circuitry to cause a further indirect change in that same load-line.

Ask yourself, can a load provide load information back to a source at faster than the speed of light? The
lumped-circuit model says yes, but it is true? If the load cannot possibly provide load information back to the
source at faster than light speed, exactly what is known to physics that can travel rearward at the speed of
light? - Process of elimination.

G3TXQ 09-24-2010, 03:19 PM

Seems to me that not only do the incident reflections cause a direct change in the load-line of the source, but
also ripple back through the drive circuitry to cause a further indirect change in that same load-line.

Cecil,

Taken to extreme, then, that change in the PA loadline will "ripple back" to cause a change in the PSU load, to
the incoming mains supply, and to the load on the utility company generating station.

I reckon it's going to take many more postings from you to convince readers that the reflected wave on the TL
"penetrates" back as far as the generating station. But I see that is where your argument leads.

73,
Steve G3TXQ
W2DU 09-24-2010, 04:19 PM
Tom, yer probably right, and I should let it go, but I can't let Cecil's last statement go, that the E/I
relaltionship involves the reflected power. The E/I relationship that does involve the reflected energy is the
complex impedance seen looking into the feed line that connects to the load. What Cecil is overlooking is that
the dissipationless R = E/I relationship is the resistance looking into the network output, which is the re-

reflecting resistance that allows the reflected energy to be totally re-reflected. This is the mechanism by which
the forward power equals the source power plus the reflected power. So I stand by my position that the
reflected power doesn't reach the plate, and that the increase in plate current due to mismatch is because the
network has been misadjusted by the mismatch.

Walt

W8JI 09-24-2010, 04:31 PM

Tom, yer probably right, and I should let it go, but I can't let Cecil's last statement go, that the E/I
relaltionship involves the reflected power. The E/I relationship that does involve the reflected energy is the
complex impedance seen looking into the feed line that connects to the load. What Cecil is overlooking is that
the dissipationless R = E/I relationship is the resistance looking into the network output, which is the re-
reflecting resistance that allows the reflected energy to be totally re-reflected. This is the mechanism by which
the forward power equals the source power plus the reflected power. So I stand by my position that the
reflected power doesn't reach the plate, and that the increase in plate current due to mismatch is because the
network has been misadjusted by the mismatch.

Walt

Walt,

Of course, but sometimes it is better to let it go.

The only thing continuing does is dilute everything of real value in the thread by filling it with noise.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 04:36 PM

I reckon it's going to take many more postings from you to convince readers that the reflected wave on the TL
"penetrates" back as far as the generating station. But I see that is where your argument leads.

Now just wait, Steve, someone is going to accuse me of believing that because you posted it. :) Nope sorry,
that's not what I am saying at all. Here's what I am saying:

Everywhere there is a backwards upstream effect, it is caused by backwards traveling energy that we tend to
label "reflected". Otherwise, what caused the effect?

At the point where the backwards upstream effect disappears and ceases to exist, the backwards traveling
energy has undergone reflection, refraction, interference, conversion, or dissipation. Since it disappears as
reflected energy, it cannot possibly make it all the way back to the generating station.

In no way am I saying or implying that reflected energy makes it all the way back to the generating station.
At every point where the backwards traveling energy has an effect, it exists at that point. At any point where
the backwards traveling energy doesn't have an effect, something has happened to it and it doesn't exist at
that point. Of the number of things that could possibly happen to it, those things must obey the laws of
physics.

W2DU 09-24-2010, 05:18 PM

OK Tom, you win. However, this is the only time Cecil and I have ever been at odds concerning any technical
issue. In more than twenty years we've always seen eye-to-eye, and have supported each other in every
other issue. So Cecil, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Walt

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 05:25 PM

However, this is the only time Cecil and I have ever been at odds concerning any technical issue. In more
than twenty years we've always seen eye-to-eye, and have supported each other in every other issue. So
than twenty years we've always seen eye-to-eye, and have supported each other in every other issue. So
Cecil, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm not sure there is a disagreement, Walt, just a misunderstanding of what I have said. You seem to think
that I have said reflected energy from the load is always what changes the load-line and I never said that as a
general statement. I could have been talking about a specific example.

Walt, I think I see your area of misconception about what I have said. Please consider the following matched
system.

IC-706---SWR meter---Tuner------feedline-----------load

The SWR meter indicates zero reflected power when matched.

Now leave every thing else the same and de-tune the tuner.

The SWR meter will indicate reflected power, i.e. reflected energy flowing back into the IC-706 and changing
its load-line. It doesn't matter where that reflected energy comes from, it is still reflected energy that is
feeding back into the IC-706 and changing its load-line. I have never said the the reflected energy that
changes the source's load-line must come from the load. In fact, some mismatched systems have zero energy
reflected from from the load.

W2DU 09-24-2010, 05:54 PM

It's still miscommunication, Cecil. You are mistuning the tuner to initiate reflected power reaching the xmtr. My
mistuning that has nothing to do with reflected power is mistuning the pi-network that couples the tube to the
feed line.

If we begin with the xmtr matched into a dummy load--no feed line--and then mistune the pi-network, there is
no reflected power involved, only an increase in plate current due to reactance introduced into the input
impedance of the network. Hope this erases the misunderstanding.

Walt

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 06:32 PM

It's still miscommunication, Cecil. You are mistuning the tuner to initiate reflected power reaching the xmtr. My
mistuning that has nothing to do with reflected power is mistuning the pi-network that couples the tube to the
feed line.

It's exactly the same configuration, Walt. Instead of causing a Z0-mismatch by de-tuning the tuner, you are
causing a Zg-mismatch by de-tuning the pi-network. If you had a reflected power meter calibrated for Zg, you
would be able to detect the reflection from the de-tuning point back to the tube. In both examples, reflections
from the mistuned networks are causing reflected energy to be incident upon the source. The reflection just
happens super fast (but not faster than the speed of light).

Please ask yourself, how long does it take for the tube to detect that the pi-network has been mistuned?
Maybe one nanosecond? Exactly what information traveled from the mistuned pi-network back to the tube
during that one nanosecond? Is there any other plausible explanation besides a reflection? This is not a trick
question. Exactly how is the de-tuning information communicated back to the tube in real-world time?

In my example, the IC-706 knows that the tuner has been mistuned through reflected energy. In your
example, how does the tube know that you have de-tuned the pi-network if not by reflected energy feedback
from the de-tuning point back to the tube? What other mechanism of feedback exists from the pi-network
back to the tube except reflected energy?

If we begin with the xmtr matched into a dummy load--no feed line--and then mistune the pi-network, there is
no reflected power involved, ...

What is the exact mechanism for communicating the mistuning of the pi-network back to the tube in real-world
time if it is not a reflection from the mistuning point? I thought you would be glad that the answer is
Reflections. :)

W2DU 09-24-2010, 07:50 PM

Cecil, beginning with the pi-network output directly connected to a dummy load (no distributed constants),
Cecil, beginning with the pi-network output directly connected to a dummy load (no distributed constants),
tuned to resonance and matched to the load, we have a relative minimum plate current as the plate sees a
purely resistive RL at the pi-network input. Mistuning the network changes the resistive RL to a reactive RL
that causes an increase in plate current and a decrease in delivery of power into the network. No reflection of
power or any other reflection is involved. And why is the time it takes for the plate current to increase
relevant?

Walt

W5DXP 09-24-2010, 08:18 PM

Cecil, beginning with the pi-network output directly connected to a dummy load

Walt, please define "directly connected" while remembering that the dummy load and the pi-network cannot
possibly occupy the same space in the real world. If they cannot occupy the same space in the real world then
there is a speed-of-light limit in the information-transfer delay between them. That delay, no matter how small
it may be, is all important since the lumped-circuit model mistakenly presumes zero delay at faster than light
speeds which is impossible in the real world. (Out of respect, I must confess that I am leading you down the
primrose path.) Hope you don't mind.

Mistuning the network changes the resistive RL to a reactive RL that causes an increase in plate current and a
decrease in delivery of power into the network. No reflection of power or any other reflection is involved.

Again I ask, how does the tube "know" that that the network has changed without some sort of feedback
(reflections) from the network? The only feedback that I know of is reflected energy. What is this other (so
far) undefined feedback mechanism that you are promoting? Please explain.

W2DU 09-24-2010, 09:07 PM

Cecil, I thought my last previous post would be my last, but this is getting rediculous!

First, I wouldn't even suggest that the dummy load and the network would occupy the same space. Tying a
simple resistor directly to the output end of the network to ground would satisfy the direct connection I stated
in the previous post.

And second, with just a simple twist of the dial connected to the plate tuning cap mistunes the network. What
more does the plate have to sense than the change in RL that it sees when the cap value is changed? Anytime
a plate load resistance (or impedance) changes for any reason, plate current must change, simple Ohm's law.
What else would the tube have to know for the plate current to change? I'm not promoting an undefined
feedback mechanism, and no feedback of reflected energy is involved. I don't understand where you're
coming from in continuing to involve reflected energy. Seems to me you're making a simple operation into a
behemoth.

Walt

W8JI 09-25-2010, 10:44 AM

Cecil, I thought my last previous post would be my last, but this is getting rediculous!

First, I wouldn't even suggest that the dummy load and the network would occupy the same space. Tying a
simple resistor directly to the output end of the network to ground would satisfy the direct connection I stated
in the previous post.

This is what happens with speed of light and the loading coil. A person invents an argument or statement and
attributes it to the other person who said or implied no such thing.

Everyone knows you did not and would not say that. It is just "baiting" to force a continued argument.

By now, no one is learning a thing from this and all the posts since a few pages ago are just filling the thread
with noise that will hurt anyone actually trying to learn.

73 Tom

W5DXP 09-25-2010, 01:57 PM

This is what happens with speed of light and the loading coil. A person invents an argument or statement and
attributes it to the other person who said or implied no such thing.
attributes it to the other person who said or implied no such thing.

Tom, with all due respect, here's the proof that I am not inventing arguments.

A quote from Dr. Corum's class notes:

"The failure of any lumped element circuit model to describe the real world lies at its core inherent

presupposition: the speed of light is assumed infinite in the wave equation (all regions of the universe can be
communicated with instantaneously)."

It is obvious that you, Walt, and many others are using the lumped-circuit model as part of your argument.
The lumped-circuit model presupposes faster-than-light propagation, whether you and others realize it or not.
Therefore, anyone who uses the lumped-circuit model, whether he realizes it or not, is presupposing (and thus
supporting) faster than light propagation.

Example: A switchable 50/100 ohm dummy load attached directly to the RF output connector of an IC-706.

IC-706---50/100 ohm switchable dummy load

With the 50 ohm dummy load switched in, the source sees its designed-for load and adjusts its load-line to
that value. In the IC-706, the transistor load-line is obviously something besides 50 ohms and there is filtering
and impedance transformation taking place between the source transistors and the output connector. There is
a measurable delay through the filtering and impedance transformation circuitry. The actual delay is not
important but let's assume the delay is 100 ns, i.e. it takes the forward field/wave from the source 100 ns to
reach the RF output connector traveling at the speed of light in the medium. Now let's switch the dummy load
from 50 ohms to 100 ohms.

You, Walt, and many others appear to argue that there are no reflections and the load-line simply changes to
its new value without delay. When you use that lumped-circuit argument you are admitting that you (1)
believe in faster than light propagation or (2) believe that the source and load occupy the same space. If you
admit that there is a delay, you need to explain what causes the delay and exactly what it is that is being
delayed based on the fact of physics that no other kind of energy exists between the source's load-line and RF
output connector except forward moving energy and reverse moving energy.

To the best of my knowledge, the only explanation that obeys the laws of physics is that when the 100 ohm
dummy load is switched in, it causes a reflection back into the IC-706. It takes 100 ns (at the speed of light in
the medium) for the source to "know" that the dummy load has changed from 50 ohms to 100 ohms. A
reflected field/wave is the only explanation (of which I am aware) that obeys the known laws of physics. The
magnitude and phase of the reflection are easily calculated based on the V/I ratio of 50 ohms across the 50
ohm dummy load and 100 ohms across the 100 ohm dummy load.

Fortunately, the delay can be easily measured. What causes the delay? Exactly what is being delayed? What
else besides speed-of-light feedback from the new 100 ohm load could cause the load-line to change 100 ns
after the load is switched? What mechanism is involved in that feedback if not in the form of a reflected
field/wave? Please be specific.

So you see, I am not making things up. Everyone who asserts that there are no reflections, i.e. no feedback,
from a 100 ohm dummy load tied directly to the RF output connector on an IC-706 believes in faster-than-light
information transfer, whether they realize it or not. Anyone who switches from the distributed network model
to the lumped-circuit model at the transmitter's RF output connector is supporting the faster-than-light
concept, whether they realize it or not.

And please, let's have a gentlemanly discussion and avoid personal attacks.

W5DXP 09-25-2010, 02:21 PM

First, I wouldn't even suggest that the dummy load and the network would occupy the same space. Tying a
simple resistor directly to the output end of the network to ground would satisfy the direct connection I stated
in the previous post.

Point is, that is not a direct connection. There is a distance between the dummy load and the source. The
distance causes a speed-of-light delay in the feedback from the dummy load to the source. Exactly what is the
nature of that absolutely necessary speed-of-light feedback from the dummy load to the source? What is the
carrier of that feedback information? These are very basic, simple questions.

Please think outside of the box and read my reply to Tom.

What more does the plate have to sense than the change in RL that it sees when the cap value is changed?

Is the change in RL communicated back to the source instantaneously, i.e. faster than the speed of light? If
Is the change in RL communicated back to the source instantaneously, i.e. faster than the speed of light? If
not, what carries the cap change information back to the source at the speed of light? If there is any delay,
some sort of carrier (field/wave/particle) must necessarily exist.

The source and the capacitor are not in the same place. There is a delay from the time the cap value is
changed to the time the source becomes aware of the change, i.e. there is obviously some sort of feedback
from the capacitor to the source. What is the exact nature of that feedback?

The feedback cannot be electrons because electrons cannot travel that fast.

The feedback cannot be instantaneous because that would violate the speed-of-light limitation.

Since the feedback impulse is known to travel at the speed-of-light in the medium, it must be something
capable of traveling at the speed-of-light and that fact of physics limits the possibilities of what it might be.

To the best of my knowledge, given the electronic circuits involved, the carrier of the feedback information
cannot be anything except RF fields/waves/photons. What do we call fields/waves/photons that are traveling
toward the source at the speed-of-light in the medium.

We call them reflections. Look all around you. Everything that you see that is not a source of light is an EM
reflection. EM reflections are everywhere including inside transmitters.

W8JI 09-25-2010, 07:45 PM

Walt,

I've given this some thought and I think I see what confuses people about behavior of inductors and tank
circuits. Some seem to assume phase delay is caused by transmission line effects inside a typical tank, or the
tank is a transmission line that conveys energy from tube to the load.

They don't realize that magnetic flux links all turn in an inductor, and so long as turn-to-turn flux coupling is
high what happens at one terminal of a inductor pretty much follows at the other so far as current.

While everything, even one inch of lead from a tube anode to the tube connector on top of the tube, does
behave like a transmission line the effect is very small compared to the lumped effects in well-designed
systems. The extreme exception would be a strip line amplifier, where matching is indeed done with multiple
transmission lines.

In other words if I take a well-designed inductor with tight flux coupling and apply a voltage to one terminal,
with the return through "ground", chassis, or groundplane, current rises and falls in virtual unison at each end
of the inductor. The reactance slows the rise of current considerably, but does so at BOTH terminals in near
unison.

So we have a capacitor shunting the input of a tank, which slows voltage rise but does not delay current rise
(it actually speeds it up). Then we have the tank inductor which at both terminals has current rise slowly
through that path, which delays current rise in the loading capacitor.

The energy storage in this system is very high, because capacitors store and release energy back and forth
with the inductance.

This stored energy dominates the system, with the tube just tugging a little bit on the tank for a fraction of
every RF cycle. The "real" energy is normally small, perhaps 10% or less of the stored energy caused by
loaded Q of the tank.

Since the predominant energy is stored energy and the tube tugs such a small amount of energy compared to
stored energy, we pretty much can just view the normal tank as a source without transmission line effects,
that's what we want to use!!

Using something else like a transmission line model with standing waves just over complicates the problem,
and is not a good tool for describing on the system works.

73 Tom

KL7AJ 09-25-2010, 07:50 PM

Walt,

I've given this some though and I think I see what confuses people about behavior of inductors and tank
circuits. They seems to assume phase delay is caused by transmission line effects inside a typical tank.
They don't realize that magnetic flux links all turn in an inductor, and so long as turn-to-turn flux coupling is
high what happens at one terminal of a inductor pretty much follows at the other so far as current.

While everything, even one inch of lead from a tube anode to the tube connector on top of the tube, does
behave like a transmission line the effect is very small compared to the lumped effects in well-designed
systems. The extreme exception would be a strip line amplifier, where matching is indeed done with multiple
transmission lines.

In other words if I take a well-designed inductor with tight flux coupling and apply a voltage to one terminal,
with the return through "ground", chassis, or groundplane, current rises and falls in virtual unison at each end
of the inductor. The reactance slows the rise of current considerably, but does so at BOTH terminals in near
unison.

So we have a capacitor shunting the input of a tank, which slows voltage rise but does not delay current rise
(it actually speeds it up). Then we have the tank inductor which at both terminals has current rise slowly
through that path, which delays current rise in the loading capacitor.

The energy storage in this system is very high, because capacitors store and release energy back and forth
with the inductance.

This stored energy dominates the system, with the tube just tugging a little bit on the tank for a fraction of
every RF cycle. The "real" energy is normally small, perhaps 10% or less of the stored energy caused by
loaded Q of the tank.

Since the predominant energy is stored energy and the tube tugs such a small amount of energy compared to
stored energy, we pretty much can just view the normal tank as a source without transmission line effects,
that's what we want to use!!

Using something else like a transmission line model with standing waves just over complicates the problem,
and is not a good tool for describing on the system works.

73 Tom

Like a lot of other aspects, it's a matter of degree. Unless an inductor is infinitely small, it's going to have
some transmission line properties, (no matter how infinitesimal) as well as lumped constant properties. A
helically wound vertical is particularly complex to analyze because you have a coil which is partly lumped and
partly radiating. A true lumped constant would have equal current in every part of the coil...which is probably
as good a test for "lumpedness" as any.

Eric

W5DXP 09-25-2010, 11:44 PM

They don't realize that magnetic flux links all turn in an inductor, and so long as turn-to-turn flux coupling is
high what happens at one terminal of a inductor pretty much follows at the other so far as current.

Adjacent turn coupling is high. Coupling from turn #1 to turn #100 in the 10 inch long coil that you tested is
virtually non-existent. According to the Hamwaves inductance calculator, the the velocity factor of your coil is
~0.14. If the current was following the wire without any adjacent turn coupling, the velocity factor would be
~0.057. The inductive coupling between the turns causes a reasonable ~2.5 times increase in the velocity
factor of the coil.

Your 3 ns "measurement" requires an unbelievable increase of ~17 times in the base velocity factor. Note that
the 2.5 times increase in the velocity factor is reasonable given the coupling from one turn to the two adjacent
turns. The coupling falls off extremely rapidly past the adjacent turns. An increase of 17 times in the base
velocity factor is simply impossible.

You are quoted on the Hamwaves inductance calculator web page, under "What is the problem with other
inductor calculators?", as complaining about the accuracy of the other inductance calculators. Why not just
accept the Hamwaves calculator results? Your coil has an axial propagation factor of 2.122 radians per meter
at 4 MHz which prohibits your coil from having a 3 ns delay as reported on your web page. The Hamwaves
inductance calculator indicates a delay of ~21.5 ns which is a lot more believable than 3 ns.

http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html

While everything, even one inch of lead from a tube anode to the tube connector on top of the tube, does
behave like a transmission line the effect is very small compared to the lumped effects in well-designed
systems.
In the argument concerning reflected energy being incident upon the load-line, that very small effect in that
one inch of wire is all important. It means that the source cannot respond instantly to the load change and
must necessarily wait for the feedback from the load to arrive back at the source. It means that all changes in
the source load-line due to a change in the load is because of feedback from the load in the form of
reflections, i.e. the source has to wait for feedback from the load to know how to adjust its load-line. It's a
very simple concept, based on the existing laws of physics. Any other explanation involves instant faster-than-
light feedback from the load.

In other words if I take a well-designed inductor with tight flux coupling and apply a voltage to one terminal,
with the return through "ground", chassis, or groundplane, current rises and falls in virtual unison at each end
of the inductor.

Here is the crux of your misconception. You are testing the coil in an environment which is almost pure
standing wave current. No matter what the delay through the coil or how many degrees the coil occupies in
the antenna, the relative current phase doesn't change between the bottom of the coil and the top of the coil
just like the relative current phase doesn't change through out all 90 degrees of a 1/4WL lossless stub. You
can use exactly the same measurements that you used on your coil to prove that the current at one end of
the stub has the same phase as the other end of the stub 90 degrees away. It does not mean that current is
flowing through the stub at faster than the speed of light.

The phase of the current is almost the same in a monopole from the feedpoint to the top of the monopole. If
you cannot measure the phase shift in a 1/4WL monopole, why would you think you can measure it in a coil in
the middle of a monopole?

Using something else like a transmission line model with standing waves just over complicates the problem,
and is not a good tool for describing on the system works.

Tom, we need to over-complicate the problem so you (and W7EL) will understand your measurement errors.
If you take a 1/4WL monopole and measure the phase of the currents at the 1/3 and 2/3 points, it will be
almost exactly the same. Why are you surprised to measure the same conditions in a loading coil that
replaces 1/3 of a 90 degree monopole?

FP----------x----------y---------- top of monopole

Let me repeat. You will measure virtually the condition in the currents at points x and y even though we know
that is 30 degrees of the antenna. We can replace that 30 degrees of antenna with a loading coil and obtain
the same results.

Here is what happens in a loading coil in a standing wave antenna:

http://www.w5dxp.com/coilphsh.GIF

Pure standing wave current doesn't flow. Therefore there is almost no difference in current phase anywhere
along a standing-wave antenna like a 75m mobile loaded antenna. Standing wave current phase cannot be
used to measure current delay through a coil or through a wire. You need to use traveling wave current for
that purpose.

W8JI 09-26-2010, 04:13 AM

An on-line calculator proves two totally independent people's real measurements wrong. One was measured
with a coil and a load resistor at the far end, not a resonant antenna at all, yet years later standing waves in
an antenna are blamed for the results.

Amazing.

W5DXP 09-26-2010, 02:22 PM

An on-line calculator proves two totally independent people's real measurements wrong. One was measured
with a coil and a load resistor at the far end, not a resonant antenna at all, yet years later standing waves in
an antenna are blamed for the results. Amazing.

What is really amazing is that you choose not to investigate the discrepancy between your and Roy's
conclusions vs what the most sophisticated impedance calculator indicates. What are the odds that you and
Roy share the same misconception in interpreting your measurements? It's certainly NOT zero. Your picture is
on the Hamwaves inductance calculator page along with your request for a more accurate calculator. They
gave you one and now you protest that it is not accurate?
Tom, the SWR in your coil/resistor circuit was sky high. You used a 50 ohm source. What would have been the
forward and reflected power readings on a Bird wattmeter? They would have been almost the same if you had
bothered to measure them. What was the impedance of your coil/resistor combination? R + jX was no doubt
sky high. The reflection coefficient from such a load is very close to 1.0. If you don't believe that, calculate the
reflection coefficient. Here is the equation for almost all of the current in your test system referenced from the
source terminal.

Itot = Vmax*sin(kx)*cos(wt) where x is the distance away from the source.

At any point x, [Vmax*sin(kx)] is the amplitude term. cos(wt) is the phase term. The relative phase doesn't
vary with x and doesn't change appreciably anywhere up and down the circuit! The same thing is essentially
true for the current on a standing-wave antenna. You and W7EL made the same conceptual blunder because
neither one of you understand the implications of using current that doesn't change phase to try to calculate
the delay through a loading coil. No matter what the actual delay through the loading coil, you and Roy will
always measure close to zero phase shift whether it is through the coil or through a 37 degree long piece of
wire. See below.

As you can see, the phase of Itot has nothing to do with the x position on the wire so the phase of Itot is the
same no matter where it is measured. Therefore, the current you were using is useless for relating phase to
delay since, at any point in time, the phase is the same throughout the circuit.

Here is a challenge for you. Re-run the experiment except this time change the coil to one large loop of wire
about 25 feet long. Now there is no turn-to-turn coupling yet your results will be the same. You will detect
almost zero phase shift in that 25 feet of wire even though 25 feet of wire at 4 MHz is known to be about 37
degrees long. How does the current jump instantly, at faster than light speed, from one end of a 25 foot piece
of wire to the other end? Why can't you measure any phase shift in 37 degrees of wire? See the above Itot
equation.

In your coil measurement methodology, you assumed the lumped-circuit model which presupposes faster-
than-light travel in the RF energy. The lumped-circuit model presupposes zero reflections which will probably
be your next argument. In order to measure the actual delay, you would have to eliminate (or minimize) the
reflected current in the circuit. Here is what you would have to do to actually measure the delay through the
loading coil. For your coil, change the 4000 ohm values to ~4600 ohms, the ~Z0 of your coil predicted by the
Hamwaves inductance calculator.

http://www.w5dxp.com/coiltest.gif

You have already admitted that reflections can occur when the load is one inch away from the source. Your
test coil was ten inches long. I suspect the physical distance around your test loop was ~20 inches. The
problem with both yours and Roy's conclusions from your measurements is that you assumed the lumped-
circuit model which ignores reflections and presupposes faster-than-light propagation of RF signals. Your
presumptions were wrong and you paid for it with misconceptions based your measurements. Your
measurements were correct - there is no appreciable phase shift in standing-wave current. Your conclusions
were wrong based on misconceptions, i.e. that the phase shift in standing wave current can be used to predict
the delay through a loading coil. It cannot.

W5DXP 09-26-2010, 08:48 PM

An on-line calculator proves two totally independent people's real measurements wrong.

I forgot to add: It wasn't your and Roy's measurements that were wrong, It was your conclusions drawn from
the measurements that were wrong. The standing-wave current phase on each end of a coil simply doesn't
yield valid calculated results for the delay through the coil or even through a wire.

To W7EL's credit, I cannot find anywhere that he supports your 3 ns delay through a 100 turn air-core loading
coil. He correctly reports a negligible phase shift in the (standing wave) current through a loading coil.
Nowhere that I can find does he assert that the phase shift in the current measurements are related to the
delay through the coil. All he does below is report valid measurements. What he doesn't say below is that your
interpretation of the measurements is technically valid. Perhaps W7EL agreed with your conclusions about the
measurements, but he avoids saying so on this w8ji.com web page.

http://www.w8ji.com/agreeing_measurements.htm

In fact, Roy earlier agreed that there is no appreciable phase shift in the current from the feedpoint to the top
of a 1/4WL monopole, whether a loading coil is present or not. In any previous argument about such, Roy
deliberately retreated to a physically small ferrite toroidal inductance to prove his point. The Hamwaves
inductance calculator doesn't cover ferrite inductances. To the best of my knowledge, W7EL knew better than
to attempt to prove his point using a large 100 turn, air-core loading coil as his example.
Perhaps you should check with W7EL to see if he agrees with your 3 ns delay through your 75m air-core
loading coil. I'm willing to bet Roy doesn't agree with that 3 ns delay that you allegedly "measured". I'll bet
that he only agrees with your phase shift measurements which are unrelated to the delay through the coil.

W5DXP 09-27-2010, 12:32 PM

A few more thoughts:

One (experiment) was measured with a coil and a load resistor at the far end, ...

That was the experiment in which you reported a 3 ns delay through a 100 turn loading coil based on the non-
changing phase in standing-wave current. The Hamwaves inductance calculator indicates that the delay
through that coil at 4 MHz is close to 21.5 ns which is ~31 degrees at 4 MHz.

If the coil is 31 degrees and there are a couple more degrees in the wiring, that circuit is ~1/3 wavelength
long, i.e. it is a distributed network. For certain parameters, the lumped-circuit model will give erroneous
results in a circuit that is 1/3 of a wavelength long.

In terms of classical logic, what you have done is called Petitio Principii, begging the question and assuming
the proof.

If you instead assume the circuit is 1/3WL long at 4 MHz and make the appropriate measurements, you will
see that the circuit is indeed close to 1/3WL long. But you cannot prove it using standing-wave current which
shifts phase hardly at all except at the current nodes where it shifts by 180 degrees. In order to detect the
phase shift through the coil you must eliminate (or at least reduce) the reflections in the network and use
traveling wave current for the phase measurement.

WR9H 09-28-2010, 12:06 AM

Hello Cecil,

I think your arguments are interesting but esoteric. My suggestion, to you, is this: set up the coil experiments
and "see what you get".

These experiments would not be terribly complex and the results, if posted, would be interesting.

Here's my suggestion for another experiment: connect a mismatched load to a transmitter BUT design a
device (perhaps lumped reactances) that absorb the reflected wave BEFORE it reaches the transmitter. What
would the transmitter do?

My prediction: burn out the finals, or if using hollow state, produce high plate currents! Here goes: the miss-
matched load is the "problem" not the reflected wave!!

Now play nice...hihi!

73
Herb
WR9H

W5DXP 09-28-2010, 03:34 AM

My suggestion, to you, is this: set up the coil experiments and "see what you get". These experiments would
not be terribly complex and the results, if posted, would be interesting.

Herb, this argument started about seven years ago. Over the years, I have posted the results of many
experiments and many simulations using EZNEC - all to no avail. Years ago, I posted my ~23 ns delay
measurement for my 75m Texas Bugcatcher coil tested on 4 MHz. I used a 100 MHz dual-trace scope for the
measurements so they were not extremely accurate but the delay was certainly nowhere near the 3 ns
reported by w8ji. Those postings are hopefully archived on Google groups r.r.a.a. Here are a couple of web
pages that resulted from my experiments and simulations:

http://www.w5dxp.com/current2.htm

http://www.w5dxp.com/current.htm

The most convincing argument is the current through a monopole. Points x and y are the center 1/3 of the
monopole.
monopole.

FP----------x----------y----------top of monopole

According to EZNEC, the phase of the current changes by one degree between x and y for a thin wire yet we
know that there is 30 degrees of antenna between points x and y. So how can the phase measurement in a
monopole be used to calculate the delay in the wire? Hint: It cannot. If it cannot be used to calculate the delay
in the the wire, how can it possibly be used to calculate the delay in the loading coil that replaces the wire? It
also cannot be used for such but that is exactly what w8ji and w7el did and reported their results as valid
delay measurements.

I told the two of them seven years ago that they needed to use traveling wave current instead of standing
wave current and w7el said, "Current is current, there's no difference" even though the equations for the two
types of current are quite different.

Traveling wave current = Imax*cos(kx+wt)

Standing wave current = Imax*cos(kx)*cos(wt)

If we replace the x to y wire length in the diagram above with a loading coil, we get approximately the same
phase readings as the 30 degrees of wire. How can anyone say there is negligible delay through the loading
coil when we know there is a 30 degree delay through the wire it replaced and the phase measurements are
essentially the same in both cases?

K4VLF 09-28-2010, 04:30 PM

Cecil, experiments for reflection time measurements:

It would seem fairly easy to setup your favorite CW generator, to a TL, to a electronically switchable load
(FETs?) .

Connect good digitizing scope to load and generator.

1) Enable generator at T zero and trigger scope. See load voltage increase at T zero + prop delay.

2) Change load at T one and trigger scope again. Verify voltage change at CW source at T one + prop delay.

If needed, add the tuner function in the equation. And if a CW signal makes measurements painful, just use
the first half cycle from a good rf generator.

Would not this simple test show that it is the reflected energy is causing a change at the generator (which is
what I think are trying to prove).

Dave

W5DXP 09-29-2010, 11:54 AM

Would not this simple test show that it is the reflected energy is causing a change at the generator (which is
what I think are trying to prove).

Hi Dave, there is no doubt that, in your suggested experiment, the reflections cause a change in the generator
load-line. The real question is what causes the change in the generator load-line when there is no transmission
line? My question is: What besides reflections, among the known laws of physics, can cause a change in the
load-line? Nobody has presented a mechanism for that change that doesn't involve information feedback from
the changed impedance. It is a very simple question having to do with information transfer theory which
cannot be transferred at faster than the speed of light.

Source------any length except zero------impedance change

Given: The source load-line doesn't change at the instant of the impedance change. There is a speed-of-light
delay between the impedance change and the change in the load-line. Exactly what is the nature of the speed-
of-light feedback from the impedance change to the source load-line? What mechanism of physics can explain
such behavior except for reflections? I have asked that question a dozen times and the silence of the replies is
deafening.

Seems to me, reflections win the argument by default, since there is no other phenomenon known to physics
that can explain the speed-of-light delay involved in the process.

If the lumped-circuit model was correct, the load-line would change the instant that the impedance is changed,
but we know it doesn't. Therefore, the lumped-circuit model is incorrect and must be discarded in attempting
but we know it doesn't. Therefore, the lumped-circuit model is incorrect and must be discarded in attempting
to answer the question of what mechanism of physics causes the speed-of-light feedback delay from the
changed impedance. The lumped-circuit model does not support speed-of-light delays.

In the above simple example, the only energy that exists in the system is source energy, forward-traveling
energy, and reverse-traveling energy. Of those three types of energy, reverse-traveling energy is the only
one that could possibly transfer information from the impedance change back to the source.

If this were EM light energy instead of EM RF energy, the answer would be "obvious". :)

Light source------any length except zero------mirror (index of refraction) change

There is no conceptual difference in the feedback mechanism between this light example and the RF example
above.

WB2UAQ 09-29-2010, 04:28 PM

Cecil,

I have followed this discussion but maybe not down to the last detail.

I see the events taking place on a source / transmission line / load configuration as a "transient response"
situation.

A few years ago I suggested this here on QRZ but I was shot down.

The signals upon reaching a discontinuity act like an L-C circuit. It is easier to visualize when thinking about a
TDR setup. The pulse reaches a discontinuity and there is a "transient response". The distributed inductance in
the transmission line results in a minus L (di/dt) situation (think of a voltage developed as a result of a sudden
change in the current thru and inductor no different than a Kettering Ignition ).

I don't have the time (here at lunch as usual when I get a moment to look at QRZ) to expand on this so I
hope I came across with a suggestion to consider a transient response approach as opposed to a steadstate
approach. To me the transmission line sure looks like a sliding 50 Ohm generator sending a signal back into
the source as is crashes into it:)

73, Pete

WR9H 09-29-2010, 11:02 PM

Information theory is not needed here. Imagine a hose emptying into a very large container. The source can
put its entire output capability into the load without knowing or caring about what is happening at the load!!
Essentially, the load in this example is an open circuit that is very similar to open space. I think we are
making the whole concept of source-load interaction WAY more complicated than it really is because of
feedline physics.

73
Herb/WR9H

W8JI 09-30-2010, 02:50 AM

Information theory is not needed here. Imagine a hose emptying into a very large container. The source can
put its entire output capability into the load without knowing or caring about what is happening at the load!!
Essentially, the load in this example is an open circuit that is very similar to open space. I think we are
making the whole concept of source-load interaction WAY more complicated than it really is because of
feedline physics.

73
Herb/WR9H

I agree.

That aside, delay between time current rises on the input of an inductor and output of an inductor was
measured accurately a long time ago. Since this argument has been going on for several years, and since all
people except one seem to agree, the debate isn't worth wasting any time on.

73 Tom
W5DXP 09-30-2010, 12:59 PM
That aside, delay between time current rises on the input of an inductor and output of an inductor was
measured accurately a long time ago. Since this argument has been going on for several years, and since all
people except one seem to agree, the debate isn't worth wasting any time on.

This is a technical challenge for you to step up the the plate and defend those delay measurement techniques
of yours by applying them to a straight wire. If you cannot defend your techniques using a straight wire, I and
others, will conclude that since those techniques are not valid for straight wires, neither are they valid for
loading coils. If you can prove that your techniques are valid for a straight wire, I will not bother you again
concerning this subject.

Tom, the Hamwaves inductance calculator was designed by people who are a lot smarter than either you or I.
Witness their PhD degrees. What degree do you hold? How many extremely competent technical people were
involved in the design of that inductance calculator? Have you even read that web page? It is you who seem
to be outnumbered by technical experts. I'm just the messenger.

Here is an example of your faulty measurement techniques and misconceptions that doesn't even contain a
loading coil. It is just a simple technical question about a plain 1/4WL wire vertical over mininec ground
modeled by EZNEC.

http://www.w5dxp.com/monopole.JPG

Using exactly the same techniques that you used to calculate the delay through your loading coil, we make
current measurements at points X and Y and they agree with EZNEC. There is a one degree phase shift
between points X and Y. At 7.15 MHz, one degree is a delay of 0.389 ns and that is your calculated delay.
However, that value requires a current flow speed that is 30 times the speed of light. Does EZNEC support
faster than light speeds or is something wrong with your delay concepts?

It is a given that there are 30 degrees of monopole between points X and Y so the actual current delay has to
be at least 11.7 ns, i.e. no faster than the speed of light.

Please explain the discrepancy between what you would measure using your previous coil measurement
techniques and what we know to be the technical facts. What should I, and others, conclude if you don't
respond with a defense of your delay measurement techniques?

Given the above technical information from EZNEC, which indicates almost zero delay in 30 degrees of
monopole, why are you surprised when your loading coil exhibits the same near-zero delay as 30 degrees of
straight wire? Why wouldn't a loading-coil with the same delay as 30 degrees of straight wire have an actual
length in the ballpark of 30 degrees? You seem to assume that delay is related to phase in a standing-wave
antenna and that is a misconception/myth.

W5DXP 09-30-2010, 01:08 PM

The signals upon reaching a discontinuity act like an L-C circuit. It is easier to visualize when thinking about a
TDR setup. The pulse reaches a discontinuity and there is a "transient response".

There's nothing wrong with your transient response thinking. It requires a reversal of energy flow at the load,
i.e. reflections are part of the transient response. When (and if) those reflections reach the source load line,
the load-line will change.

Information theory is not needed here. Imagine a hose emptying (water) into a very large container.

Herb, if you want to use Archimedes Principle on RF energy, rather than Maxwell's equations, be my guest.
Just one question, how are you going to get those water molecules to travel at the speed of light? :)

W5DXP 09-30-2010, 04:01 PM

... delay between time current rises on the input of an inductor and output of an inductor was measured
accurately a long time ago.

Tom, what you measured was not the delay. You measured the phase shift and then calculated the delay from
the phase shift based on your false assumptions about phase shift being related to delay. What you have to
technically prove is that the delay is related to the phase shift in a standing-wave current environment. You
have never presented that proof and I challenge you to present that proof now. I have presented proof to the
contrary a number of times.
Here is what I think is a diagram of your 3 ns coil delay setup with the coil replaced by 25 feet of wire. If this
is not correct, please tell me what is correct and I will modify the diagram.

http://www.w5dxp.com/phase.JPG

Again, I challenge you to perform that experiment with 25 feet of wire (instead of your 100 turn coil) and
report the results back to us. You will find that your calculated delay in 25 feet of wire is in the ballpark of the
same 3 ns delay reported through your 100 turn coil. Hint: A 3 ns delay through 25 feet of wire is impossible
because it violates the speed-of-light limit.

W5DXP 10-02-2010, 02:48 PM

Again, I challenge you to perform that experiment with 25 feet of wire (instead of your 100 turn coil) and
report the results back to us.

Please note the complete absence of any technical argument from W8JI. Here is why he is unwilling and
unable to technically justify and defend his 3 ns "measured" delay through a 10" long 100 turn loading coil.

http://www.w5dxp.com/travstnd.GIF

The traveling wave current changes by one degree in phase for each one degree in length. The phase change
in traveling wave current can accurately be used to determine the delay through a loading coil or through a
wire. This is what W8JI mistakenly thought he was doing.

The standing wave current phase doesn't change at all. Therefore, standing wave current phase cannot be
used to determine delay through anything including a loading coil and a wire. The delay through a coil (or
through a wire) in a standing-wave antenna is mostly unrelated to the phase shift in the current. EZNEC
verifies that fact of physics (see the above graph). The two EZNEC files are available on my web page, one
unloaded in order to generate standing-wave current and the other loaded in order to generate traveling-wave
current. Click on "Currents" to see the current phase in each wire segment.

http://www.w5dxp.com/standing.EZ
http://www.w5dxp.com/travling.EZ

A mobile antenna is called a standing-wave antenna because ~90% of the current on the antenna is standing-
wave current. Under those conditions, it is impossible to use the change in current phase to predict, calculate,
or measure the delay through a loading coil or through a wire. When (and if) W8JI runs the last suggested
experiment above, he will discover that fact of physics.

K5MC 10-09-2010, 04:50 AM

Cecil,

I recently made some measurements of the input and output currents of a "large" air-core inductor at the
local university where I teach electrical engineering. My instrumentation included two Tektronix TCP303
current probes (good up to 15 MHz), two matching Tektronix TCPA300 current probe amplifiers, and a two-
channel 100-MHz oscilloscope. The approximate dimensions of the coil I tested are:

mean coil diameter = 81 mm

axial length = 264 mm
wire diameter = 6.2 mm (coil is made of copper tubing)
23.5 turns
test frequency = 7.0 MHz

Plugging these numbers into the inductor calculator at http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html gives

the following:

Zc = 1658 ohms
phase shift constant = 1.31639 radians/meter

Therefore, with a terminating resistor of about 1700 ohms I would expect to see a phase shift of about 20
degrees (a time delay of about 8 ns) at 7 MHz between the input and output currents. For various resistor
values between 300 ohms and 19,000 ohms I measured the following "time delays" between the input and
output currents (the third number in each row is the corresponding ratio of the amplitudes of the input to
output coil currents).

300 ! 5 ns 0.8
480 ! 9 ns 0.9
670 ! 12 ns 1.1
670 ! 12 ns 1.1
1.2 k! 14 ns 1.3
1.9 k! 14 ns 1.9
2.4 k! 14 ns 2.0
3.3 k! 12 ns 2.4
5.6 k! 6 ns 3.0
11 k! 3 to 4 ns 3.4
19 k! 2 to 3 ns 4.2

I was using the pi network (in the reverse direction) in my old Heathkit DX-60B transmitter as a matching
network between the signal generator (a 40-meter Ten-Tec QRP rig) and the coil/resistor network. Although
the trends are definitely in the correct direction, I am somewhat disappointed that the measured values are
not in better agreement with what the online inductor calculator predicts.

Regardless of the accuracy of my measurements above, I completely agree with your comments regarding
the phase information of standing wave current versus traveling wave current. No EE familiar with these
concepts will disagree with your statement that "standing wave current phase cannot be used to determine
delay through anything including a loading coil and a wire."

73, K5MC

W5DXP 10-09-2010, 12:52 PM

I recently made some measurements of the input and output currents of a "large" air-core inductor at the
local university where I teach electrical engineering.

Thanks Mickey, for your time and effort. I assume your "delay" was calculated using the measured current
phase shift through the coil. At 7 MHz, since one RF cycle of 360 degrees is ~143 ns, I am going to reverse
engineer your "delay" figures back into current phase shift degrees. I hope they are correct.

300 ! 5 ns 12.6 deg

480 ! 9 ns 22.7 deg
670 ! 12 ns 30.2 deg
1.2 k! 14 ns 35.2 deg
1.9 k! 14 ns 35.2 deg
2.4 k! 14 ns 35.2 deg
3.3 k! 12 ns 30.2 deg
5.6 k! 6 ns 15.1 deg
11 k! 3 to 4 ns 10.1 deg
19 k! 2 to 3 ns 7.6 deg

Here's the question: If the coil and frequency remains the same, why does the "delay" through the coil change
with a changing load resistor?

Answer: The actual delay through the coil does not change. What changes is the percentage of standing wave
current vs traveling wave current. As the load resistor value approaches the characteristic impedance of the
coil, the standing wave current magnitude is decreased as a percentage of total current while the traveling
wave current magnitude is increased as a percentage of total current.

The total current is always the phasor sum of the standing wave current and the traveling wave current and
the magnitude of each can vary all the way down to zero.

Although the trends are definitely in the correct direction, I am somewhat disappointed that the measured
values are not in better agreement with what the online inductor calculator predicts.

Let me offer an explanation for the difference in the calculated value and the measured value. You didn't
eliminate the reflections, you just reduced them. If you had eliminated the reflections entirely, your delay
measurements would have approached the calculated value of 20 ns.

Regardless of the accuracy of my measurements above, I completely agree with your comments regarding
the phase information of standing wave current versus traveling wave current. No EE familiar with these
concepts will disagree with your statement that "standing wave current phase cannot be used to determine
delay through anything including a loading coil and a wire."

Your phase measurements, just like W8JI's, were accurate. The inaccuracy is the misconception that total
current phase can be used to calculate delay when reflections are present. In addition to the above quoted
assertion: If any percentage of standing wave current is present, a calculated delay based on total (net)
current phase shift is inaccurate. That is what your "measured" delays above indicate.
To summarize: Your pi-net matching network did not eliminate reflections in the circuit. It formed a conjugate
match which includes a reflected wave. That's probably why you couldn't achieve the 20 ns = 50.3 degree
phase shift.

It appears that W8JI should expand his experiment to include a varying load resistor and report those eye-
opening results on his web page.

W5DXP 10-10-2010, 12:59 AM

To summarize: Your pi-net matching network did not eliminate reflections in the circuit.

I thought about this today during my 8-hour round-trip on my Harley. In any circuit or network that contains
only a traveling wave, the voltage and current are in phase. So if the net voltage and net current are not in
phase at the end of the coil, reflections exist. It is easy to calculate and/or measure the difference in phase
between the voltage and current. I don't know why I didn't think of this before.

W5DXP 10-10-2010, 03:24 PM

That's probably why you couldn't achieve the 20 ns = 50.3 degree phase shift.

This statement was based on my misunderstanding. Mickey said 20 degrees, not 20 ns, so my above
statement is completely irrelevant and I apologize.