Let me say it again. Your re-reflected voltage and Steve's re-reflected
voltage are not the same quantities because they have completely
different definitions.

Think about that. Why would you expect your re-reflected voltage and Steve's
re-reflected voltage to be the same value when they have completely different
definitions?

Where are the completely different definitions?

Therefore, my final comment on Eq 9 is that it works in specific cases but it
certainly is not valid in general.

It is valid for Steve's definition of re-reflected voltage. It is not valid
for your definition of re-reflected voltage. You guys are NOT using the
same analysis model. I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.
Steve's analysis model works for him. Your completely different analysis
model works for you. You both get the same answers but you are using
different models to get there.

Cecil, I don't recall defining re-reflection, nor do I recall seeing any
definition of it by Steve. A re-reflection is a re-reflection. It's simply a
reflection of a wave established when an EM wave encounters a discontinuity in
its otherwise smooth path. How else can it be defined?

A forward traveling EM wave that is a result of re-reflection has no different
characteristics than any other EM wave, and therefore cannot be distinguished
from any othe EM wave.

Now let's take another look at Steve's Eqs 7 and 8. There is no question here
that there is anything different from being general. In fact, they're
straightforward, valid, and viable. They are general, and are understood in
exactly the same manner by any engineer speaking transmssion line language.

Now let's look at Eq 9. It too, is straigtforward, and it is entirely general if
the user knows that V1 and V2 are each delivered by two different sources of
energy. However, in general, V1 and V2 cannot be added, or superposed if the
energy involved comes from only one source. Note the operative word is 'in
general'. If there is a specific case, as in the 1/4 wl transformer where there
are two reflections that are re-reflected into the forward direction, the Eq
works, but it doesn't work in the configuration that was replaced by the 1/4 wl
transformer. Consequently, Eq 9 must be invalid in general.

I simply can't accept that there can be more than one definition of
re-reflection. Furthermore, anyone reading Steve's paper and encounters Eq 9
believing it valid in general, and applies it to a general case, he has no
assurance he's going to get the correct answer. The chances are he won't, the
same as I and others did. If Eq 9 is Steve's piece of cake he can't have it and
eat it too.

And as I said in a much earlier postI must remind you that Steve made a vital
error when he said:

"When two forward-traveling waves add, general superposition theory and
Kirchhoff's voltage law require that the vector sum of the individual
forward-traveling voltages such that VFtotal = V1 + V2."

This statement is not true in general. This statement would be true in general
if you replace 'forward-traveling waves' with 'voltage', and specified that the
statement is following simple circuit theory. This is because only in special
cases will it be true where the voltages are forward-traveling waves. You know
very well there are cases involving transmission lines where circuit theory
fails and transmission-line theory must be involved to obtain the correct
solution to a problem.

This is what makes Eq 9 clearly invalid in general.

Walt