Reg Edwards wrote:

Who the heck are Ramo and Whinnery. Never heard of them! Presumably,
because you refer to them, they are or were people who make or made a living
out of re-iterating old wive's tales in book-form.

It was obvious I introduced G = C * R / L simply to show that a line's Zo
can be purely resistive even when it is NOT lossless. It can have any loss
you like.

Apparently you have not yet grasped the idea.

Ramo and Whinnery are the authors of my 50's college textbook on fields
and waves. Of course it could be a misprint, but they say your above
formula is an approximation that is good for low-loss lines.

Apparently, something additional happens for high-loss lines. Chipman
seems to agree with Ramo and Whinnery when he introduces some additional
interference terms (discussed some time ago on this newsgroup). At the
time, I didn't realize the additional terms were interference terms but
the impedance of the load apparently somehow interacts with the
characteristic impedance of the high-loss transmission line to upset
the ideal relationships in your equation above.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp