|
Components and Circuits For discussions about component types, alternatives and availability, circuit configurations and modifications etc. Discussions here should be of a general nature and not about specific sets. |
|
Thread Tools |
30th Jul 2009, 12:30 pm | #81 |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Porthmadog, Gwynedd, UK.
Posts: 199
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
No, no, no... that 60% efficiency figure quoted was largely the conversion efficiency (DC to RF) of the device used - a klystron, actually - and has nothing to do with power lost in any source impedance.
|
30th Jul 2009, 6:03 pm | #82 |
Pentode
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 155
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
I see discussion of the max power transfer theorem is popular these days.
Whilst there are many first class engineers in this forum there also appear to be a few blind spots, particularly about this particular theorem or its application. The Maximum Power Theorem is a linear network theorem that applies to all networks with linear components or networks that we regard as having linear components. Thus it applies to our (hopefully) linear audio amplifier and to mains power supplies. It only applies to electric machinery (including loudspeakers) if we use a linear model for that machinery. It does not apply to nonlinear components eg thermistors. It does not apply to any network where there is interaction between the source and load (eg feedback) other than across the two terminals of connection. This last condition is important as you have to be able to split the network into two sub networks connected by only two terminals. One sub network must contain all the sources and the other must contain all the loads. Let us call these sub networks the source and the load. The theorem states that maximum power is transferred from the source subnetwork to the load subnetwork when the impedances seen looking from the source sub network into the other is the complex conjugate of the impedance looking into the source subnetwork from the load. Translating this mouthful into the example with a battery and resistance it states that the max power is transferred when the load resistance equals the source resistance. Not the other way round. We should also remember that the source voltage and impedances are Thevenin equivalents for the whole source network so may well not be the same as the actual circuit values. |
30th Jul 2009, 6:07 pm | #83 |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Porthmadog, Gwynedd, UK.
Posts: 199
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Just a couple of extra pebbles to toss into the pool...
One definition of Maximum Power Transfer theorem that seems to be about (admittedly, it sidesteps the issue of conjugate impedances) runs as follows:- "The Maximum Power Transfer Theorem states that the maximum amount of power will be dissipated by a load resistance if it is equal to the Thevenin or Norton resistance of the network supplying power." Which is strictly provable, beyond doubt. But note that it defines the problem back-to-front from the direction that we normally use in practice: it assumes that the source impedance is known and fixed, and attempts to find the value of load impedance that satisfies the MPT criterion. But in the real world, the problem is often different: we know what the load impedance is, and the source impedance is often less well-defined or controllable. Using this criterion, we find a different solution for the MPT requirement, one where the source impedance has to be zero for maximum power in the load. The sums aren't difficult to do: I shall shame you into doing them for yourselves... And if that's too much trouble, Googling 'Maximum Power Transfer Theorem' produces a host of solutions, but note that they are all derived from the condition where source impedance is known, and load impedance has to be determined... A couple of quite contentious entries are as follows:- http://www.analog-rf.com/match.shtml http://faraday.ee.emu.edu.tr/EENG224...20Transfer.pdf ... both of which discuss the Godlike status that the MPT theorem has acquired, and the actual limitations to its use in practice. Enjoy. |
30th Jul 2009, 6:20 pm | #84 |
Pentode
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 155
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
But this is not necessarily true unless the other conditions I mentioned are also satisfied.
In fact my old electrical engineering textbook goes further. It also requires all the components to be bidirectional. It is easy to cook up examples where the resistances are equal but minimum power is transferred, or the max occurs at a resistance ratio of other than unity, simply by choosing an example that violates one of my posted conditions. |
30th Jul 2009, 6:26 pm | #85 |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 1,587
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
As a non practicing professional engineer but if you like a student wanting more understanding to develop my knowledge , I hope the following is a foundation for correct use of the theorem.
Only Applicable to linear networks. When reactive component involved we must have conjugate match. Studiot I understand and accept your more detailed reply. Whatever use we think of the theorem I just need to clarify when it is applicable to use. My last post concerning reflected power from a matched aerial was in response to a statement that I still cannot understand. maybe I am reading the post too literally Mike |
30th Jul 2009, 6:43 pm | #86 |
Pentode
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 155
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
True understanding comes when one can explain why
We do not use impedance matching for mains supply or HIFI amps/speakers, although the theorem applies to these situations. Consequently we do not achieve max power transfer in these situations. The charging of a rechargeable battery violates one of my conditions and the theorem is not applicable. Minumum (perhaps zero) power is transferred at unity impedance ratio. |
30th Jul 2009, 7:28 pm | #87 | ||
Heptode
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 674
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
Its output voltage behaves as if the aerial were a generator in series with an internal resistance (equal to the characteristic impedance of the line if it is matched). As has been said before when matched, equal power is dissipated in this resistance and the load (in this case the receiver). If the antenna is lossless then this energy cannot be dissipated as heat, the only way to 'get rid' of it is to radiate it back into the aether. Jim |
||
30th Jul 2009, 7:32 pm | #88 |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 1,587
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Eureka!!! many thanks Jimmc... i need to learn to practice my reading as well
Mike Last edited by MichaelR; 30th Jul 2009 at 7:33 pm. Reason: spelling |
30th Jul 2009, 8:31 pm | #89 |
Heptode
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 674
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
In several previous posts it has been said that for an amplifier connected to a load equal to it's output impedance; the power dissipated in the amplifier is equal to that in the load. This is not always true!!!
Consider an operational amplifier with negative feedback applied: If the feedback is derived from the output voltage (shunt feedback) the output impedance is lowered. Conversely if the feedback is derived from the output current (series feedback) the output impedance is raised. Combine the two and you can set the output impedance without any dissipative components. For a fuller explanation see http://sound.westhost.com/project56.htm A similar idea using feedback can be applied to defining the input impedance of an amplifier. This in much more often used as it enables the input impedance of an amplifier to be matched to the source an still have noise figure of less than 3dB. Jim |
30th Jul 2009, 8:43 pm | #90 | |
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
D.C. input = 42 kW; RF output = 25 kW. Therefore 'lost' power = 42 minus 25 = 17 kW. Let's assume that this 17 kW is dissipated in the output impedance, R0 of the transmitter. Then, since this output resistance is in series with the 50 - ohm load, RL, the current is same in each. Therefore 25 kW divided by 50-ohms = 17 kW divided by R0, which gives R0 = 34 ohms. However, there is an error in the thinking here. The 17 kW 'lost' is not dissipated in the output resistance, R0. This 'lost' power is d.c. - not RF - and becomes heat dissipated inside the transmitter, not in R0. Al. / Skywave. PS This Post written whilst Posts #81 (and on) were being submitted. Last edited by Skywave; 30th Jul 2009 at 8:46 pm. Reason: Add "PS" |
|
30th Jul 2009, 9:03 pm | #91 | ||
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
An E-M wave impinging on a conductor will induce a voltage in it. Since it is a conductor, a current will flow. This current is not infinite; the conductor under the specified conditions (angle of strike of wave, etc.) will exhibit an impedance. When we try to extract power from the aerial, the current that flows in the aerial's external load is in series with the aerial's impedance. If the two impedances are the same, only half of the available power is produced in the load. The remaining half of the power has to go somewhere: it is simply re-radiated. A very similar situation exists with a director on a Yagi-type aerial, but here there is no external load - so all of the power is re-radiated - and by choosing the appropriate length of the director and its spacing from the 'active element', where the power is finally extracted, the current in the active element is thus increased. Al. / Skywave. |
||
30th Jul 2009, 10:07 pm | #92 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: near Reading (and sometimes Torquay)
Posts: 3,094
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
T
Quote:
However, it feels misleading to me to make a distinction between heat dissipated inside the transmitter and R0. There is no separate R0, it IS the transmitter. Losses in the operation of the output stage manifest themselves as the source impedance of the output. OK, pure wasted DC won't do that, but other aspects of its operation will do. But I suppose it just comes down to how you like to think about this stuff. |
|
30th Jul 2009, 11:47 pm | #93 | |
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Solihull, West Midlands, UK.
Posts: 4,872
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
What if you had a perfect lossless amplifier (i.e. it converted its power supply into signal with 100% efficiency, like an ideal SMPS), with both current and voltage feedback? Its output impedance looks like a resistance, so can you drive a signal back into this resistance and get dissipation? If not, in what sense is it a resistance? If so, where actually does the dissipation take place? My gut feeling is that dissipation would take place, if necessary by the perfect amplifier working backwards and returning power to its supply. An imperfect (i.e. real) amplifier would just dissipate the power inside itself somewhere, probably in the active devices. So I think that this 'manufactured (by feedback) output resistance' behaves just like a real resistance. Anone care to comment? I know this is getting a bit theoretical, but this is how we test the edges of an idea. |
|
31st Jul 2009, 12:02 am | #94 | |
Pentode
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Somerset UK
Posts: 155
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
|
|
31st Jul 2009, 12:06 pm | #95 | |
Rest in Peace
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chard, South Somerset, UK.
Posts: 7,457
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
Al. / Skywave. |
|
31st Jul 2009, 12:55 pm | #96 | |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Posts: 1,587
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier. With Opamps the open loop output impedance is not theoretically zero in reality it can be a few hundred ohms and then manufacturers specify subject to a fixed load for that quoted value.I think you are right power would be dissipated inside the amp. Mike |
|
31st Jul 2009, 2:32 pm | #97 | |
Heptode
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 674
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
Any increase in the load resistance will cause voltage limiting, any decrease current limiting. Similarly any power fed back into the output will cause one or the other limit to be hit. Under these circumstances the output resistance cannot be measured, it has no meaning. Now consider what happens if the drive is reduced, we can now measure the output voltage and current for a range of load resistances without running into clipping. From these readings we can calculate the output impedance. Now if we have switchmode amplifier where the output is obtained by averaging (with a low pass filter) a variable Mark:Space ratio rectangular wave, it is in theory this is 100% efficient at all output levels from zero to maximum. This is still true when the output resistance is modified by negative feedback, no losses have been introduced. So where does the reverse power go? It is my belief that the power drawn from the DC supply will reduce to compensate, an equal amount of power will simply not be generated in the first place. Jim |
|
31st Jul 2009, 2:43 pm | #98 | |
Dekatron
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lynton, N. Devon, UK.
Posts: 7,079
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Quote:
In fact, you don't even need an amplifier - consider the DC case, with a switch-mode power supply with voltage and current feedback to give a drooping output characteristic. This can easily be made to give a straight-line, resistive output. And when you load it so that the voltage collapses to half the open-circuit value, you'll get maximum power in the load, negligible dissipation in the SMPS, and the power drawn will be only exceed the load power by thge SMPS losses. |
|
31st Jul 2009, 3:29 pm | #99 |
Heptode
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK.
Posts: 674
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
Can't get simpler than that, I wish I'd thought of explaining it that way!
Jim |
31st Jul 2009, 8:15 pm | #100 |
Retired Dormant Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK.
Posts: 186
|
Re: Impedance matching theory.
HI,
Just back from another hol ! and had a quick look at the posts. Sorry if I has missed this point in my quick look, but I don't think anyone has mentioned distortion, or has actually made any reference to distortion, Matching the speaker to the output valve implies that distortion versus power output is considered together This is where the valve makers "Optimum Load" is important, the valve maker having calulated the best (optimum) impedance that should be matched to the speaker, for an acceptable percentage distortion level. So unfortunately, simply arriving at the "static" resistance value, based upon anode voltage and current, may not enable on it's own, a satisfactory impedance to be calculated in matching the speaker. The output transformer supplies the necessary turns ratio to achieve the impedance ratio required to match the speaker to this optimum load resistance. Of course this will only hold over the limited range of frequencies that the speaker impedance remains at the nominal quoted impedance, in practice it does not cause too much of a problem at other frequencies, especially if the optimum load impedance quoted by the manufacture is used as a basis. The power output available from the valve is all that is available, and to convey this maximum power to the speaker, requires that the load be properly matched, therefore maximum power transfer implies correct matching An incorrcectly matched speaker may therefore increase or decrease distortion, may increase or decrease power output, but if you want the best mix of distortion and power output, match the speaker to the optimum load. |