>rich wrote,
>
>> >> Transforming 100 j+0 ohms to 100k j+0 ohms by a single reactance is
>> >seemingly a bit of a
>> >> stretch.
Where I think Rich errored and meant to say 100+j0 and 100K+j0.
>
>to which i responded,
>
>> >it looks like a snap to me! i've got no resistance ("0"), a pure
>> >reactance (+j100 ohms). i want to go straight out the +imaginary
>> >axis from 100 ohms to 100k ohms. so, i add an inductor in series
>> >with the existing 100j + 0 that has a reactance of j99.9k (+0); the
>> >total is now j100k + 0, isn't it? i used a "single" reactance to
>> >transform the given impedance to the desired impedance. i think that
>> >one was too easy... what am i missing?
>
>to which rich responded,
>
>> The 100 ohm R is paralleled by 75nH?
>
>huh? what 100 ohm R? what 75nH?
>i'll repeat my statement... " i've got no resistance ("0"), a pure
>reactance (+j100 ohms)." no 100 ohm R! zero "R"! i'm obviously
>on a different wavelength (no pun intended) and not understanding
>your question, so i'm dropping this.
So, George has given the correct answer to the question asked.
73,
Jon
KE9NA
ps: Bandwidth? What bandwidth....The internet backbones are all fiber
optic these days. More bandwidth there than you can shake a stick
at...... :-)
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
KE9NA
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
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
|