Value of Voltage Reflection Coefficient

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the voltage reflection coefficient (VRC) in transmission lines, specifically its calculation using the formula Γ = (Z_L - Z_0) / (Z_L + Z_0). The user seeks clarification on whether this formula applies when measuring distance from the source to the load instead of the load to the source. It is confirmed that the formula does hold, but the interpretation of the distance variable z must be carefully considered, as it can lead to different results. The user acknowledges a previous misunderstanding regarding the direction of measurement but has since corrected it. Understanding the context of z is crucial for accurate calculations of the VRC.
varunag
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
hi

i was studying the "wave characteristics of transmission lines". while considering the lines with resistive termination, the term "voltage reflection coefficient(VRC)" came.
With reference to the book, "Field and Wave Electromagnetics", by David K. Cheng,
the following expression was given for the VRC:
<br /> \Gamma = \frac{Z_L - Z_0}{Z_L + Z_0} = |\Gamma|e^{j\theta_\Gamma}<br />
<br /> Z_0\text{ is the characteristic impedance, and } Z_L\text{ is the load impedance.}<br />

This was when, the distance on the line was measured from the load towards the source.
I wanted to know whether the same formula holds if we measure the distance from source towards the load. I was trying to find the same and would still be trying out, but thought it would be good to know more... (you always get to know more than what you want at PF)

regards,
varunag
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi Varun, good to see you on PF. How are you these days? :-)

Well, since you're following Cheng, I will also use the convention he's used:

\Gamma(z) = \frac{V^{-}e^{\gamma z}}{V^{+}e^{-\gamma z}}

here z = 0 corresponds to the load. So at the load,

\Gamma_{L} = \frac{V^{-}}{V^{+}} = \frac{Z_L - Z_0}{Z_L + Z_0} = |\Gamma_{L}|e^{j\theta_\Gamma_{L}}

Distances towards the source are along negative z, so at a distance z' from the load, the coordinate z = -z' and so

\Gamma(z=-z&#039;) = \Gamma_{L}e^{-2\gamma z&#039;}

which implies that

\Gamma(z=-z&#039;) = |\Gamma_{L}|e^{j\theta_\Gamma_{L}-2\gamma z&#039;}

I guess this is what you were looking for.

Note: We need to be careful when writing \Gamma(z&#039;). Depending on the context, it could correspond to a distance z' from the load (which would imply that this is an implicit notation for z = -z' and the minus sign has been suppressed for convenience) or the coordinate z = +z'. Both mean totally different things.

Hope that helps.
 
thanks maverick, for the prompt reply.

a few things i have understood after reading your post and then the book:
1. The VRC I've mentioned, is the "voltage reflection coefficient" of the load impedance Z_L.
2. The formula does depend on the choice of our z. And I was earlier making some mistake when I was trying to find \Gamma using z going from source to load. Although later I was able to find \Gamma correctly. :smile:
 
Hey guys. I have a question related to electricity and alternating current. Say an alien fictional society developed electricity, and settled on a standard like 73V AC current at 46 Hz. How would appliances be designed, and what impact would the lower frequency and voltage have on transformers, wiring, TVs, computers, LEDs, motors, and heating, assuming the laws of physics and technology are the same as on Earth?
While I was rolling out a shielded cable, a though came to my mind - what happens to the current flow in the cable if there came a short between the wire and the shield in both ends of the cable? For simplicity, lets assume a 1-wire copper wire wrapped in an aluminum shield. The wire and the shield has the same cross section area. There are insulating material between them, and in both ends there is a short between them. My first thought, the total resistance of the cable would be reduced...
I used to be an HVAC technician. One time I had a service call in which there was no power to the thermostat. The thermostat did not have power because the fuse in the air handler was blown. The fuse in the air handler was blown because there was a low voltage short. The rubber coating on one of the thermostat wires was chewed off by a rodent. The exposed metal in the thermostat wire was touching the metal cabinet of the air handler. This was a low voltage short. This low voltage...
Back
Top