• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
  • Click here to find out how to win free radios from Retevis!

Adjustments for resonance

I'm not having any issues. Just trying to get things simpler.
For example, if someone who has no concepts beyond SWR asks a question about SWR, but your answer requires an understanding of complex impedance, did you really help them?

You're bringing the house down!
raw
 
i have no idea what you're reading because the terms "5.1," "dip," or "resonance," do not appear anywhere in that post, that is what is misleading.

here is the original post.

"The relative unimportance of low SWR
when feed-line attenuation is low is demonstrated
rather vividly in the following two examples of
spacecraft antenna applications. First, in the
TirosESSA-Itos-APT weather satellites, of which the
entire multifrequency antenna-systems design was
the work of the author, the dipole terminal
impedance at the beacon-telemetry frequency (108
MHz in early models) was 150 - j100 ohms, for a
VSWR of 4.4, reflected power 40 percent.
Matching was performed at the line input, where it
was fed by a 30 milliwatt telemetry transmitter.
(We can't afford much power loss here!) The
feedline and matching-network attenuation was 0.2 dB,
and the additional loss from SWR on the feed line
was 0.24 dB (5.4 percent), for a total loss of 0.44
dB (9.6 percent). On the prevalent but erroneous
assumption that all reflected power (40 percent) is
lost, only 18.1 milliwatts would reach the antenna,
and efficiency, determined on the same erroneous
basis, would be only 60 percent. But 27.1
milliwatts were measured; of the 2.9 milliwatts lost
in total attenuation, only 1.6 milliwatts of it was
from the 4.4:1 VSWR. So the real efficiency would
have been 95.5 percent if perfectly matched at the
load, but reduces to 90.4 percent by allowing the
4.4 VSWR to remain on the feed line. Second, in
the Navy Navigational Satellite (NAVSAT), used
for precise position indications for ships at sea, the
antenna terminal impedance at 150 MHz is 10.5 -
j48 ohms, for a VSWR of 9.8, reflected power 66
percent. Also matched at the line input, flat-line
attenuation is 0.25 dB, and the additional loss from
SWR is 0.9 dB, for a total system loss of 1.15 dB,
approximately 1/6 of an S unit. This is an
insignificant amount of loss for this situation, even
in a space environment where power is at a
premium. Why did we match at the line input?
Because critical interrelated electrical, mechanical
and thermal design problems made it impractical to
match at the load. Line-input matching provided a
simple solution by permitting the matching
elements to be moved to a noncritical location."

Another Look at Reflections Part 1
M. WALTER MAXWELL

here's your original post:
https://www.worldwidedx.com/threads/adjustments-for-resonance.257457/page-4#post-761955
This was months ago and I don't recall the details. Maybe I was tired and misread something, or maybe I was drunk and confused, or maybe I quoted the wrong post.

I trust that you won't hold it against me, and I just dont have the energy to go back through the whole thread and attempt to reconstruct my thought process that lead the that post.
 
Here's the next question:
If my peak forward is at a 3.1:1 SWR, indicating a resonant system, what's the point? After all, the 3.1 SWR will cause my transmitter to fold back so severely I may as well be transmitting on a dry noodle, yes/no? Explain in simple terms; remember, some of us hail from Arkansas...
And what's wrong with Arkansas
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ BJ radionut:
    EVAN/Crawdad :love: ...runna pile-up on 6m SSB(y) W4AXW in the air
    +1
  • @ Crawdad:
    One of the few times my tiny station gets heard on 6m!:D
  • @ Galanary:
    anyone out here familiar with the Icom IC-7300 mods
  • @ Crawdad:
    7300 very nice radio, what's to hack?
  • @ kopcicle:
    The mobile version of this site just pisses me off