View Single Post
  #16   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 03, 06:01 PM
Tom Bruhns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message . com...
(Tom Bruhns) wrote in message om...

Fascinating... Please have a look at the following reply I got from
Besser... I still wish people would go through the simple math
themselves, and make up their own minds what's correct and what isn't.
I gather that Slick has made up his own mind, though see no evidence
that it's on the basis of the simple calcs from what I believe he
already agrees with. Oh, well, not MY problem. (This is twice now,
recently, that I've followed up on other people's references and found
them to be at best questionable in some way.)




I have no problem admitting i am wrong, when i am wrong. But you
haven't given me any reason to think so.


Well, you may not think I have, but...

What is your definition of a conjugate match? When do you think
max. power transfer occurs?


I'd be happy to answer this more directly after you show us the steps,
as I suggested, to get from the basic TEM transmission line relations
and the load boundary conditions to Vr/Vf. But for now, I'll let you
consider, if you wish, the case where you have a long transmission
line with reactive Zo, terminated so you have no reflected wave. Rho =
0. SWR = 1:1. I trust you'll agree you "see" an impedance equal to
Zo looking into the source-end of the line. Now imagine that you have
cut this line at some point; you also see Zo looking into that cut,
right? (The side with the load attached, that is.) So, can you
simply connect those two pieces back up and still see no reflection on
the piece on the source side? I _do_ believe that the line can't tell
whether the impedance it's connected to is a load right there, or the
impedance presented by another length of line, so it should be obvious
from that what I believe the line must be connected to, to get rho=0.

Cheers,
Tom