Sujet : Re: Francophones
De : dhg99908 (at) *nospam* hotmail.se (Dan Green)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design sci.electronics.repairDate : 27. Dec 2024, 19:10:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <k9rtmjls5l3j79eakg3r046kr2s2njfrh1@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:21:55 -0800, john larkin <
JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 16:23:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
On 12/26/24 00:15, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 14:48:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 22:42:17 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>
In message <6ftjmjppf4421dl2ec0ek4mvfht74lmnu2@4ax.com>, Cursitor Doom
<cd@notformail.com> writes
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 23:05:03 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>
The real difference between the two impedances is that the amount of
PTFE dielectric in the 75 has been minimised in order to increase (with
some difficulty) the Zo from 50 to 75 ohms. IIRC, the 50 has a
more-uniform structural RLR, so it the better connector at the higher
frequencies.
>
I don't think that's quite right. The diameter of the inner and outer
conductors has more influence on Zo than the dilectric thickness.
>
It's right all right.
>
The outer diameter is the same for the 50 and 75 ohms. For the 75, I
presume it's not practicable to make the pin diameter smaller and retain
its robustness, so the only way to increase the Zo is to remove as much
of the dielectric as possible. If you compare the 50 and the 75, you
will see what I mean.
>
I still maintain the principal determinants of the impedance are as I
stated previously. The formulas for line impedance are shown on this
page and the aforementioned determinants are key.
>
https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calculators/coaxial-cable-calculator
That calc is nonsense. Reasonable entries generate negative values and
a preposterous cutoff frequency.
Negative values for Z0? That would be surprising, because
the equation is correct, even though the physics are
obfuscated away into a few magic factors.
>
Example please?
>
Jeroen Belleman
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aglpygrtir3m9bccil1to/EvRfZcalc.jpg?rlkey=nazlwgbmpvbssz5zv2a92hrqj&raw=1
GIGO. Where on earth did you get those input parameter values from?
Try it again with something more realistic.