• 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!

Does Cable Length Affect SWR?

It's amusing how any statement that disagrees with yours is always deemed "gibberish" or rubbish. I'm not even going to waste any more of my time with it with comments like that. Oh, I know you'll have something to say about that, too. You're the type that can't stand to not have the last word. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">



Moleculo


</p>
 
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>in any instance where standing waves exist on the line it can no longer be said that the feedline represents its characteristic impedance. the fact that in this instance that a consistent 50 ohms no longer exists at all locations cannot be disputed... <hr></blockquote>



The way you worded the sentance expains the point of the discussion, entirely. The represented impedance may not equal the characteristic impedance, which is a defined constant. The impedance being represented along feedline is a representation of the combination of input, feedline, and termination impedance. Nobody is disputing that what is represented may be different than 50 ohms or whatever the characteric impedance value of the feedline is. But if you seperate out any one part of the equation, that part is what it is, all by itself, and that doesn't change. That's what we're disputing about. The term "characteristic impedance" has a specific and defined meaning and it does NOT mean the impedance that is represented along a feedline when the other two factors of the system are included. Yes it's being picky.





Moleculo


</p>
 
Good call Sonwatcher.



<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

73

Jeff


CDX 339

RadioActive

20040427_0100_eit_171.gif


yaesurogo.gif
</p>
 
Freecell,

Just curious, are you and 228 the same person ?


sonwatchersig.gif


CDX_3.gif




God bless you all !



CDX-897

OT-897

WV-897

CM-2368

American Kangaroo-1897</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sonwatcher@worldwidecbradioclub>Sonwatcher</A> 
pennsylvania_fl_md_clr_28006.gif
at: 8/28/04 5:54 pm
 
I was wondering the same thing after looking at both of their profiles but didn't bother to ask.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">


FT-857_web.jpg
Garth 9VE01 PE993 CDX993 Learn from others mistakes.You can not live long enough to make them all yourself.</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qrn>QRN</A> 
globalWhite.gif
at: 8/28/04 6:11 pm
 
I was wondering as I noticed the sentence structures are the same. A lot of lack of capitals at the beginning of sentences.


sonwatchersig.gif


CDX_3.gif




God bless you all !



CDX-897

OT-897

WV-897

CM-2368

American Kangaroo-1897</p>
 
They post with the same IP address...



As I said a while back....the term "characteristic impedance" has a specific and defined meaning. I suggest that it gets read again. The impedance presented on the line as a result of reflections is NOT the same as "characteristic impedance". No matter how many times you say "yes it is", that doesn't change the actual definition. Nobody has disagreed that the impedance presented on the line as a result of reflections is different than the characteristic impedance. But the fact that you're even comparing the differing, new impedance to a baseline, implies an understanding that the term "characteristic impedance" is in fact a "baseline" measurement. Otherwise why would you keep using it in comparison? I don't know how many different ways all of this can be stated. As I said before, go read the definition of the term "characteristic impedance" a few dozen times.




</p>
 
Hello everyone, I'm new to CB radios but I'm learning alot and this is a question I have heard numerous people give numerous answers to, but I still haven't been given that one definite answer.



On one end, I've heard adding more cable does help lower SWR. I have heard first hand accounts from cb techs that say that adding coax does help lower SWR. I don't see how.



On another end, I've heard that adding coax does nothing more than "trick" a SWR meter into thinking the SWR is lowered. I don't see how this could be either.



I read in a 1979 edition of a ARRL handbook that cable length does NOT affect SWR. So my question is: Who is correct?



My theory is that when adding coax to a high SWR, the added coax somehow becomes part of the antenna, "masking" the antenna's SWR issue. In effect, adding coax would be like lengthening your antenna, but your not fixing your true SWR's. Sounds weird I guess.



I'm still learning but I've had my nose in books and websites since a buddy got me into cb radios. I enjoy learning how they work and how to fix em more then anything. You'll probably see me posting many questions, so please bare with me, I'm new and trying to learn. Thanks for everything.


</p>
 
The characteristic impedance or surge impedance of a uniform transmission line is the ratio of the amplitudes of voltage and current of a single wave propagating along the line; that is, a wave travelling in one direction IN THE ABSENCE OF REFLECTIONS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. The feedline only exhibits it characteristic impedance under these line conditions.

The characteristic impedance or surge impedance of a uniform transmission line is the ratio of the amplitudes of voltage and current of a single wave propagating along the line; that is, a wave travelling in one direction IN THE ABSENCE OF REFLECTIONS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION at DuckDuckGo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shadetree Mechanic
Hello everyone, I'm new to CB radios but I'm learning alot and this is a question I have heard numerous people give numerous answers to, but I still haven't been given that one definite answer.

This is normal. There are many ideas about various aspects of the hobby that have been floating around for years. Many very good people get caught up in said ideas. Your situation is normal, and everyone in the hobby that tries to understand what is actually happening goes through this at some point.

On one end, I've heard adding more cable does help lower SWR. I have heard first hand accounts from cb techs that say that adding coax does help lower SWR. I don't see how.

On another end, I've heard that adding coax does nothing more than "trick" a SWR meter into thinking the SWR is lowered. I don't see how this could be either.

I read in a 1979 edition of a ARRL handbook that cable length does NOT affect SWR. So my question is: Who is correct?

They are both correct, from "different points of view". Let me explain. On a theoretical "perfect" coax that has no loss, length does not affect SWR. However, "lossless" coax does not exist in what many people call the "real world". These losses affect SWR in only one direction, they lower it. The more losses you have, the lower the SWR appears to be. This is why when adding coax the SWR appears to drop. However, the SWR at the antenna side does not actually change due to adding more coax.

Lets say we have a radio that puts out 100 watts. The signal travels down the coax as has about 1 dB of loss, we are going to round that to be 20% for ease of calculations. The SWR at the radio side sees a forward power of 100 watts, while the SWR meter at the antenna side sees a forward power of 80 watts. Lets say the antenna has an SWR of 3:1, which means 25% (or 20 watts) of that signal is reflected back up the coax. The SWR meter at the antenna sees all of these 20 watts reflected and putts these together with the forward power of 80 watts to read 3:1 SWR. As the reflected signal travels back up the coax is also affected by the losses in said coax, so of that 20 watts, 4 watts is lost on its way back to the SWR meter leaving 16 watts of measured reflected power, which, with 100 watts of forward power this meter read is close to 2.3:1 SWR. So in this scenario, an SWR of 3 on the antenna side is almost down to an SWR of 2.3 on the radio side.

My theory is that when adding coax to a high SWR, the added coax somehow becomes part of the antenna, "masking" the antenna's SWR issue. In effect, adding coax would be like lengthening your antenna, but your not fixing your true SWR's. Sounds weird I guess.

This is exactly right. As I explained above you have a "true SWR" as you put it, and a "measured SWR". The difference between these is not due to the length of coax between them, but the losses in that coax. This is one reason why the longer coax run you have the better quality coax you need.

I'm still learning but I've had my nose in books and websites since a buddy got me into cb radios. I enjoy learning how they work and how to fix em more then anything. You'll probably see me posting many questions, so please bare with me, I'm new and trying to learn. Thanks for everything.

To this end, I have a reading material to recommend, and a video I recommend you watch. The reading material is called "Another look at Reflections", and is freely available as a .pdf download online. If you need it, this will give you the basics to understand freecell's comment above. If you want more you can get any of the books, "Reflections", Reflections 2" or "Reflections 3" by the same author, M. Walter Maxwell, all are different versions of the same book, so you only need one, and they expand on the .pdf I mentioned above.

The video is this one. You can skip ahead to 6:42 in the video to get straight to the demonstration.



The DB
 
Last edited:
The characteristic impedance or surge impedance of a uniform transmission line is the ratio of the amplitudes of voltage and current of a single wave propagating along the line; that is, a wave travelling in one direction IN THE ABSENCE OF REFLECTIONS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. The feedline only exhibits it characteristic impedance under these line conditions.

The characteristic impedance or surge impedance of a uniform transmission line is the ratio of the amplitudes of voltage and current of a single wave propagating along the line; that is, a wave travelling in one direction IN THE ABSENCE OF REFLECTIONS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION at DuckDuckGo
If the swr is not 1:1 then the feed line won't be 50 ohms. Because the reactance of the feed line circuit in total will change the overall impedance of the feed line. Do I have that right?


Edit: the input impedance is what we are talking about. Now I am thinking about the output impedance, because it could be different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: secret squirrel
#1 A 200 ft. run of LMR-400 (1.288 dB. of loss) will dissipate 25.7 watts out of 100 watts leaving only 74.3 watts input into a perfect load. You will never see anywhere near that much loss from a 3:1 match. #2 Under the same conditions above into a 150 ohm load only an additional 9.8 watts is reflected back to the source from the load. That's 9.8%, not 25%, for a 3:1 swr. The attenuation from line loss alone is over 60% of total loss from line attenuation and swr combined and the 9.8 watts of power caused only by the reflection mismatch is still in the network for the next cycle.

#3 If we change the feedline length to an electrically equivalent 1/2 wave line approximately 15.25 feet long, power loss due to line attenuation drops to 3.7 watts including both line loss and swr, 39.8% of the 3.7 watts of loss solely attributed to swr mismatch, 1.47 watts reflected by a 3:1 mismatch.

In the first two examples we see feedline input impedances of 20 to 70 ohms until we incorporate the tuned half wave line in the last example when we see an input impedance of 146.5 ohms, jX=0, (no reactance) mirroring the load impedance of 150 ohms and repeating it back to the transmitter source, still delivering over 96% of the power to be delivered to the antenna.

The % of reflected power notations in the scale of your swr meter are absolutely meaningless.

All figures are valid for an operating frequency of 27.385 MHz..
 
Last edited:
Sec 1.4 Engineering an Antenna System. Engineering is the process of making workable compromises in design goals where theories and practical applications guiding different aspects of the design are in conflict, making it impossible to optimize all the goals. Good engineering is simply recognizing the correct choices in the compromises and relaxing the right goals, as in the spacecraft antenna design described earlier. We amateurs spend many hours building and pruning antenna systems. Wouldn't it be worthwhile spending some of that time learning how to engineer the design in order to make correct trade-off decisions among related factors instead of letting old king SWR dictate the design? First, we need to improve our knowledge of reflection mechanics and transmission-line propagation to understand:

(1) Why reflected power by itself is an unimportant factor in determining how efficiently power is being delivered to the antenna.

(2) The effect of line attenuation to discover why it is the key factor that tells us when and how much to be concerned with reflected power and when to ignore it.

(3) Why all power fed into the line, minus the amount lost in line attenuation, is absorbed in the load regardless of the mismatch at the antenna terminals.

(4) Why reflection loss (mismatch loss) is canceled by reflection gain through re-reflection obtained by the impedance matching device at the input of the line (Ref 19, Ref 2, and Ref 136).

(5) Why a low SWR reading by itself is no more a guarantee that power is being radiated efficiently than a high SWR reading guarantees it is being wasted.

(6) Why SWR is not the culprit in transmitter loading problems; why the real culprit is the change in line-input impedance resulting from the reflected power, and why we have complete control over the input impedance without necessarily being concerned with the SWR. T o o Lo w a n SW R Ca n Kill Yo u 1

(7) The importance of thinking in terms of resistive and reactive components of impedance instead of SWR alone, and why SWR by itself is ambiguous, especially from the viewpoint of the selection and adjustment of the coupling and matching circuitry of an external line-matching network.

Second, we need to become aware that with moderate lengths of low-loss coax, such as we commonly use for feed lines, loss of power because of reflected power on the HF bands can be insignificant, no matter how high the SWR. For example, if the line SWR is 3, 4, or even 5 to 1 and the line attenuation is low enough to ignore the reflected power, reducing the SWR yields no significant improvement in the radiated power because practically all the power being fed into the line is already being absorbed in the load (the antenna). This point has special significance for center-loaded mobile whip antennas, because of the extremely low attenuation of the short feed line, which is explained in detail later in this book.

Third, we should become more familiar with the universally known, predictable behavior of off-resonance antenna-terminal impedance and its correlation with SWR (Ref 2, Fig 2-7; Ref 7). This knowledge provides a scientific basis for evaluating SWR-indicator readings in determining whether the behavior of our system is normal or abnormal, instead of blindly accepting low SWR as good, or rejecting high SWR as bad. The following two examples emphasize the importance of this point by showing how easily one may be misled by a low SWR reading.

Chapter 1, Pages 5-6; Reflections III by M. Walter Maxwell
http://www.w3pga.org/Antenna Books/Reflections III.pdf
 
Last edited:
Freecell, I'm confused about why you are posting about what you are posting.

Are you posting this for saint7ds? He has shown no sign of having any understanding of complex impedance, or any of its components, and especially how they relate to his question or an antenna's efficiency. Do you really expect him to understand even half of what you have posted based on the question he asked?

Or maybe you are responding to my response? A post that was intended to explain something that someone like us would consider a beginner to have asked in a way he can potentially understand? If this is the case, please don't take my response as the limit of my knowledge, and please don't waste your time trying to educate me further in this regard. It is at best a waste of both of our times.

Or perhaps you are responding to a post that I didn't go back to read? After all, this is an old thread that the post right before saint7ds's is from 2004 (16 years ago). If that is the case I apologize for bothering you.


The DB
 
  • Like
Reactions: secret squirrel
Very easy. Take an antenna analyzer and tune the antenna with a short jumper ( about 14 feet if you don’t like to be close to the antenna ) take measurements and tune it to lowest SWR ) . No matter the length of coax you use, it is supposed to be 1.0 to 1.2. That fall within the antenna specs. The shortest the coax length, the more power will get to the antenna. The longest the coax, the less power will reach the antenna because of attenuation present in the coax because of the characteristics of it. The thicker the coax, less attenuation will be present.

Are you going to fight for a couple of watts returning to the shack ? It’s not worth it.

Why do you think antenna companies say to use the shortest coax length to reach your radio ?
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.