On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 09:56:04 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Cecil, please read me in the first paragraph. By Steve's own words he says the
re-reflected wave must equal the reflected wave.

No, he says that is a fallacy. He says the re-reflected wave equals the
reflected wave multiplied by the reflection coefficient. His example is:
reflected power = 33.33W, re-reflected power = 8.33W

But when the system is matched the reflection coefficient is 1.0.

re-reflected power = 33.33W(rho^2) = 33.33W(0.25) = 8.33W
Here's what Dr. Best said in his QEX article, Part 3: "When two forward-traveling
waves add, general superposition theory ... require(s) that the total forward
traveling voltage be the vector sum of the individual forward-traveling voltages
such that VFtotal = V1 + V2." He clearly implies that V2 is a forward-traveling
wave and it is. Numerically, it is equal to the voltage reflected from the load
multiplied by the reverse reflection coefficient. In S-parameter terms, V2 is
the s22(a2) term.

Cecil, it is clear that you are not reading my posts!!!

You quoted Steve above, but I quoted the SAME quote earlier, explaining that he
is WRONG. Please reread my quote. General superposition theory does NOT require
that the forward voltage be the vector sum of the individual forward-traveling
voltages.

When are you going to understand that that superposition yields the standing
wave, NOT the forward wave? I've told you this over and over again, but you
apparently aren't listening.

Cecil, please go to Johnson as I pointed out earlier and become educated as to
where Steve screwed up.

Walt