In Reply to: Re: What am I missing? posted by Ted Smith on June 13, 2006 at 10:56:15:
Ted: ""
Nope, you are exaggerating the effects on all sides in the carefully chosen directions to make your arguments on each seem plausible and consistent.""Nope. No exaggerations...read carefully please.
Your amp..it's input, 10K ohms, 1 volt input signal, 100 uAmp peak current, power delivered to input...100 microwatts. 100 times 10 -6 watts, 10-4 watts.
Your amp, output...1 kw, 10 +3 watts.
The ratio of output to input...10+3/10-4.
That is a power ratio of 10+7...so where is the exaggeration??? I stated 1/10th of that, remember? So, change gain a tad, change impedance a tad, change output power a tad, still, your talking power gains on the order of a million..
Zip field. The magnetic field that results is half on one side of the pair half on the other. divide by two.. As a receiver, it is equally divided, half one side, half the other.
In addition, the magnetic field outside a single wire drops off as 1/r..when the second opposing wire is next to it, the field outside the pair drops off as 1/r(squared).
As I stated, 1/4 is the maximum, trivially based on geometry. And the coupling will be much lower, due to field dropoff.
It is useless to bandy about silly statements like "your exaggerating to your advantage". It's simple, proven, easily calculated, electromagnetic field theory. Also, I've posted the field maps on other forums, this one does not support the jpg's.
And, where I have tested using accurate as all "heck" test equipment, I say so.
If you wish to question the technical accuracy of my statements, do so. Do not start this "your exaggerating" garbage, as that is easily proven, shall we say, inaccurate?
You know I am technically oriented, do you think it pays to say "oh yah", instead of discussion??
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Ummm, this.. - jneutron 11:54:50 06/13/06 (2)
- Re: Ummm, this.. - Ted Smith 12:58:49 06/13/06 (1)
- Re: Ummm, this.. - jneutron 13:46:01 06/13/06 (0)