Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm not arguing that at all. In a transmission line, destructive
interference causes an energy reflection in which the ratio of
the E-field to H-field is transformed from one characteristic
impedance to another. It's all described on the Melles-Groit
web page. They don't call it an energy reflection but that's
what it is.

Really? It doesn't act like a reflection. There isn't a reflective
surface.

Of course, it acts like a reflection and of course there is a reflective
surface if it is non-glare glass or a point if it is in a transmission
line. It is exactly what Walt has dubbed a "virtual short" and it is
a short for voltage, but not for current. Walt and my disagreements
are really minor.

The amplitude of the "reflection" seems unrelated to any
"reflection" coefficient.

It is *exactly* related to the reflection/transmission coefficients.
You cannot possibly be ignorant of that fact so you are merely being
unethical.

If it were a reflection, I think it would be
much easier to understand - much less controversial. Don't you agree?

It *IS* a reflection. Any of your statements to the contrary is just
obfuscation (something in which you seem to have a master's degree).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----