Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
I'm eagerly awaiting your analysis showing how and why it's wrong. Or
simply which of the statements and equations I wrote are incorrect, and
what the correct statement or equation should be and why. Or even a
simple numerical example that illustrates the relationship between
reflection and power transfer.


I think Reg put it best:

"Dear Dr Slick, it's very easy.

Take a real, long telephone line with Zo = 300 - j250 ohms at 1000 Hz.

Load it with a real resistor of 10 ohms in series with a real
inductance of
40 millihenrys.

The inductance has a reactance of 250 ohms at 1000 Hz.

If you agree with the following formula,

Magnitude of Reflection Coefficient of the load, ZL, relative to line
impedance

= ( ZL - Zo ) / ( ZL + Zo ) = 1.865 which exceeds unity,

and has an angle of -59.9 degrees.

The resulting standing waves may also be calculated.

Are you happy now ?"
---
Reg, G4FGQ


If it were not for Reg pointing out this example, i wouldn't have
researched and corrected my original, "purely real" Zo post with the
more general conjugate Zo formula.

And i researched it because i knew that you cannot have a R.C.
greater than one for a passive network (you can only have a R.C.
greater than one for an active network, which would be a "return gain"
instead of a "return loss"), so i knew that when Zo is complex, my
original post must have been wrong.

Roy, you and i have been slinging mud at each other, but i do
respect the things you have taught me, and i do thank you for deriving
the uV/meter equation for dipoles.

But i want you to know that i'm not doing this for my ego. Didn't
i admit that calling antennas "transducers" was a better word than
"transformers", albiet 2 transducers make 1 transformer?

I have yet to see you admit that someone else has a point.

Intelligent people can be close-minded, that is for certainly, in
which case, their intelligence is blunted.



Slick