[TowerTalk] Resonance is over rated

[Jeff Carter]

Of course.  I tried to gently suggest this earlier.

I'll go a step further: It's stupid to talk about resonance in a
circuit that doesn't contain reactive components. j0 = j0 (or i0 for
the math and physics folks).  The vector diagram, or Smith Chart, or
network analyzer is going to show that we're living on the X axis,
firmly in Resistiveland when j (or i) is equal to 0.

We can muddy the water by talking about what broadcasters do and what
hams can get away with, but when we return to the theory and the books
(including anything by ARRL) the math is the same, and has been
accepted science for a hundred years or more.

I will now wait for somebody to start talking about how lead length
and "real world" factors make the math pointless.  I will then answer
that the man's meter said "j0", which means for practical purposes the
leads can be discarded.  His dummy load is a big resistor, which by
definition are not reactive.

Jeff/KD4RBG

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:10:26 -0400
>From: Blair S Balden <blair.balden at wmich.edu>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Resonance is over rated
>To: Clay W7CE <w7ce at curtiss.net>
>Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>
>Hi everyone,
>Wouldn't a better definition of a resonant circuit be a circuit that has reactance, but where the capacitive reactance is equal to the inductive reactance?  That would exclude a purely resistive circuit.  The concept of resonance does not seem appropriate for purely resistive circuits, where the response is not frequency-dependent.
>Blair