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.
The Feb 2025 Radioddity Giveaway Results are In! Click Here to see who won!

Reply to thread

Message

Bob, I think you intended to direct us to part 1.5.2, and if I'm right...I sure thank you for putting us right at the meat of your reference.

You are right, there is a lot of good feed line theory in between all the math. I also found a couple of pertinent links that I think say about the same...possibly in more understandable language, at least for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable

http://www.w8ji.com/transmission_line_theory.htm

In part what I take away from Paul's 1.5.2 part of the article, is to me very important to understanding the basics of feed line theory. I figure you might agree. IMO, this also explains why I tend to refer to some objects as being coaxial rather than just talking about transmission line mode currents flowing somewhere on an antenna structure.

When Heaviside developed his theory for coax, I think he was intending to develop a feed line idea that did not respond like the 2 wire lines you described above. I think he did that, with one distinction in mind...the load and the location of the feed point must be near perfect, in balance, and resistive, and then and only then…will the coax do what his theory suggested. Otherwise the coax acts very similar to the 2 wire feed line that you noted. To me this describes what coaxial means.

Am I even close?

<blockquote data-quote="Marconi" data-source="post: 499580" data-attributes="member: 903">Bob, I think you intended to direct us to part 1.5.2, and if I&#039;m right...I sure thank you for putting us right at the meat of your reference.You are right, there is a lot of good feed line theory in between all the math. I also found a couple of pertinent links that I think say about the same...possibly in more understandable language, at least for me.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable</a><a href="http://www.w8ji.com/transmission_line_theory.htm" target="_blank">http://www.w8ji.com/transmission_line_theory.htm</a>In part what I take away from Paul&#039;s 1.5.2 part of the article, is to me very important to understanding the basics of feed line theory. I figure you might agree. IMO, this also explains why I tend to refer to some objects as being coaxial rather than just talking about transmission line mode currents flowing somewhere on an antenna structure.When Heaviside developed his theory for coax, I think he was intending to develop a feed line idea that did not respond like the 2 wire lines you described above. I think he did that, with one distinction in mind...the load and the location of the feed point must be near perfect, in balance, and resistive, and then and only then…will the coax do what his theory suggested. Otherwise the coax acts very similar to the 2 wire feed line that you noted. To me this describes what coaxial means.Am I even close?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marconi, post: 499580, member: 903"] Bob, I think you intended to direct us to part 1.5.2, and if I'm right...I sure thank you for putting us right at the meat of your reference. You are right, there is a lot of good feed line theory in between all the math. I also found a couple of pertinent links that I think say about the same...possibly in more understandable language, at least for me. [B][I][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable[/url][/I][/B] [B][I][url]http://www.w8ji.com/transmission_line_theory.htm[/url][/I][/B] In part what I take away from Paul's 1.5.2 part of the article, is to me very important to understanding the basics of feed line theory. I figure you might agree. IMO, this also explains why I tend to refer to some objects as being coaxial rather than just talking about transmission line mode currents flowing somewhere on an antenna structure. When Heaviside developed his theory for coax, I think he was intending to develop a feed line idea that did not respond like the 2 wire lines you described above. I think he did that, with one distinction in mind...the load and the location of the feed point must be near perfect, in balance, and resistive, and then and only then…will the coax do what his theory suggested. Otherwise the coax acts very similar to the 2 wire feed line that you noted. [B][I]To me this describes what coaxial means.[/I][/B] Am I even close? [/QUOTE]

Top Bottom