UK Vintage Radio Repair and Restoration Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Attenuators

Skywave · 29th Nov 2017, 4:35 pm

Thank you Chris: what you've written is also my understanding. And it marries closely with Q2. which I asked in my OP.

So . . . if I have an expression of the form R1 = f(Z1, Z2), where Z1 and Z2 are of the form R + jX, presumably I will need to replace R1 by (R1 + jX1); write down the resulting (and modified) corresponding equation; do the algebraic simplification with the aim of finally equating the real and imaginary (quadrature) components, thus arriving at the values for R1 and X1?

If that is correct, that I understand. It also would appear (to me) that the scaling method that Dave (G8HQP) mentions should give the same result; Dave's method looks a lot less cumbersome than the all-algebraic method mentioned in my above para.

Al.

29th Nov 2017, 4:35 pm	#14
Skywave Rest in Peace Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK. Posts: 7,457	Re: Attenuators - theory and the design of. Thank you Chris: what you've written is also my understanding. And it marries closely with Q2. which I asked in my OP. So . . . if I have an expression of the form R1 = f(Z1, Z2), where Z1 and Z2 are of the form R + jX, presumably I will need to replace R1 by (R1 + jX1); write down the resulting (and modified) corresponding equation; do the algebraic simplification with the aim of finally equating the real and imaginary (quadrature) components, thus arriving at the values for R1 and X1? If that is correct, that I understand. It also would appear (to me) that the scaling method that Dave (G8HQP) mentions should give the same result; Dave's method looks a lot less cumbersome than the all-algebraic method mentioned in my above para. Al.