Rich Measures wrote:
>
>It seems to me that we start with a parallel inductor /resistor
>suppressor circuit, the conductance (G) and susceptance (B) of which has
>an Admittance, Y. This admittance may be converted to an equivalent
>impedance, represesented as a series Xp-Rp.
^^^^^^ ^ ^
That's where it all goes wrong. What you have just described are Rs and
Xs, where s stands for SERIES-equivalent.
>
>>
>>Likewise when the whole network is considered as a single equivalent
>>resistance and a single equivalent reactance in series, then
>>that resistance is Rs and that reactance is Xs.
>
>These are seemingly not the terms used in Wes' measurements.
As I showed in the earlier posting that analysed a typical line in Wes's
table, his definitions of Rp and Xp are EXACTLY the same as mine. I
tested it every-which-way, and it is completely consistent with the
normal textbook definitions. The proof is there in DejaNews.
73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|