**From:** S. Weir (*[email protected]*)

**Date:** Tue Jun 05 2001 - 11:29:49 PDT

**Next message:**Doug McKean: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Shielding Effectivness Question"**Previous message:**Rob Hinz: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Shielding Effectivness Question"**In reply to:**Chris Rokusek: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Antenna Problem on the Board"**Next in thread:**[email protected]: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Antenna Problem on the Board"

Chris,

I would like to resolve this, and believe the comments below can.

At 10:36 AM 6/5/01 -0700, you wrote:

*>Steve,
*

*>
*

*>Please see within.
*

*>
*

*> > Chris,
*

*> >
*

*> > I don't see how you can justify the surprise introduction of a 20 ohm
*

*> > driver resistance into the discussion. That reduces the incident
*

*> > amplitude
*

*> > seen by the load at the far end similarly. Is it appropriate to
*

*> > compare a
*

*> > circuit that provides 70% (Rdvr=20, Zl=50, Rload=50), against one that
*

*> > provides 100%, (Rdvr=20, Rser=30, Zl=50, Rload=open)?
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>Sorry if this is a surprise, I used a 20 Ohm driver in my first reply to
*

*>this thread to which no one posted any objections.
*

Chris, I'm sorry, but I never saw that 20 ohm driver in the discussion. I

think this is easier to analyze if we leave the driver at zero ohms for the

time being.

*> > For your analogy of a tight "U" shaped trace, I think that model is
*

*> > great. But the radiating cross-sectional area does not increase. The
*

*> > whole point is that we are assuming TEM, and so the wave is
*

*> > polarized. The
*

*> > scalar formula you are using holds only for the perpendicular
*

*> > cross-section
*

*> > which is just the original Length * Height. Put another way, if we have
*

*> > two traces, A and B where the driver for A is on the left, and B
*

*> > is on the
*

*> > right, and they are close to each other, driving each line
*

*> > alternately will
*

*> > not increase E over what we get by driving one line alone.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>Doesn't look like we are going to converge on this one. I can't convince
*

*>myself if I take 1/100th of the current and put it on 100 lines each firing
*

*>sequentially that they are not going to add in phase at some point in the
*

*>far field. Especially if I consider the extreme case where each of the
*

*>lines are electrically short such that there would be complete overlap
*

*>between firing times.
*

If the sources are all on the same side, I agree with you. If they are all

very close together we approximate simple vector addition.

I disagree that this is a model of the reflected wave case. See below.

*>Also, no one yet has mentioned the added discontinuity in the case of series
*

*>termination whereby the wave must make a reversal? Although this is a
*

*>higher frequency effect probably on the order of the oh-so-fun-trace-corner
*

*>thread, it should also be noted.
*

Here, I think you are hinting yourself to the solution. The reflected wave

is not in-phase, it is another wave propagating in the opposite direction

over the same path at a later time. If you return to your scalar equation,

and we connect an oscillator for one minute or two, our E measurement will

still be the same during the on times of the oscillator.

As the reflected wave propagates back towards the source, I returns to zero

at each point as di/dt goes through its maximum negative value w/reference

to the incident wave front. We get new spectral components along the line

based on f = 1/2*(Tflight_load - Tflight_local_point ) for each point on

the line. This effects a sort of down-chirp. The energy gets dispersed

over a frequency range.

Regards,

Steve.

*>**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
*

*>[email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
*

*>si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.
*

*>si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
*

*>****
*

**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to

[email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE

si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.

si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu

****

**Next message:**Doug McKean: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Shielding Effectivness Question"**Previous message:**Rob Hinz: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Shielding Effectivness Question"**In reply to:**Chris Rokusek: "RE: [SI-LIST] : Antenna Problem on the Board"**Next in thread:**[email protected]: "Re: [SI-LIST] : Antenna Problem on the Board"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 10:12:15 PDT
*