"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message link.net...
Slick:

[snip]
And not the complex conjugate of Z0.
:
:
This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

The reflection coefficient is zero only when the Zload
is the conjugate of the Zo.

Go look it up in any BASIC RF book!

Slick
[snip]

Easy now boy! You'r almost as bad as me!


ok...taking some deep breaths here...




It is entirely possible, in fact I know this to be true, that there can be
more than one *definition* of "the reflection coefficient". And so... one
cannot say definitively that one particular defintion is WRONG.


But we need a definite definition, otherwise everyone has their
own standard, so when i say "reflection coefficient", you will will
know what i mean, not something else.

When i say "Elephant", hopefully the same animal pops into your
head.



If the definition of the reflection coefficient is given as rho = (Z - R)/(Z
+ R) then that's what it is. This particular definition corresponds to the
situation which results in rho being null when the unknown Z is equal to the
reference impedance R, i.e. an "image match". If the definition is given as
rho = (Z - conj(R))/(Z + conj(R)) then rho will be null when the unknown Z
is equal to the conjugate of the reference impedance conj(R), i.e. a
"conjugate match".



Correction: rho = (Z - conj(R))/(Z + (R)), the conjugate being
only in the denominator.


Slick