4 ms·
These are some nice measurements (note that the first scope capture is measuring something totally different from the other scope captures), but there are a cou
by AdamH12113 3y ago
These are some nice measurements (note that the first scope capture is measuring something totally different from the other scope captures), but there are a couple errors. First, the correct term for the apparent impedance of a long transmission line is "characteristic impedance", not "specific impedance". "Specific" means "per unit of mass". Second, the usual equivalent circuit for a transmission line is parallel capacitors separated by series inductors. The article tries a hybrid explanation with a propagating wave charging capacitors, which doesn't really work.
I've been getting into microwave circuit design this year for work. One "fun" thing I've learned is that even at low gigahertz frequencies, if you want to make accurate impedance measurements with a network analyzer you have to adjust for signal propagation delays with picosecond precision. On the boards I've made, every millimeter of transmission line is about 5.56 picoseconds of delay, which is about 10 degrees of phase shift at 5 gigahertz.
Parasitic inductance and capacitance also makes those nice, simple terminating resistors look at lot less simple, but that's another story...
- mianos 3y agoCorrect me if I am wrong, but, if impedance is the ratio of capacitance to inductance, so 50ohm coax, Z = sqrt(L/C), then C/L = 1/50^2 so the inductance is 2500 times less. For a short length, he may be choosing to ignore the L as it probably not significant for the exercise.
- AdamH12113 3y agoYou have it backwards. The inductance is much greater than the capacitance. But the important thing is that neither can be neglected. Without inductance, you just have a bunch of capacitors in parallel. Without capacitance, you have a bunch of inductors in series. Both cases simplify to one big component. You need alternating L and C to get wavelike propagation.
- mianos 3y agoyes, I stand corrected. It then seems to make less sense he says he is ignoring the inductance when considering the capacitance.