Dan wrote:
Now that the various typo mistakes have been corrected, and putting
aside for the moment the name calling and ad hominem arguments, could
it be that _both_ sides in this discussion are correct? Camp 'A' says
that the reflection coefficient is computed the classical way, without
using Zo conjugate, and offers various mathematical proofs and
discussions of infinitely long lines. Camp 'B' says the reflection
coefficient is computed with Zo* (Zo conjugate) in the numerator, and
offers explanations dealing with the conservation of energy and
maximum transfer of power.

No one from "Camp B" has given any justification for the assumption that
the condition for minimum reflection is the condition for maximum power
transfer. We're lacking either a proof, a derivation from known
principles, or even a numerical example. I maintain that this assumption
is false.

Likewise, there's no evidence that the conventional and universally
accepted (within the professional community) formula for reflection
coefficient violates the conservation of energy. If it did, it would
have been shown to be in error long ago.

Both sides may be correct since they are talking about _two different_
meanings for the term "reflection coefficient." One has to do with
voltage (or current) traveling waves and the other has to do with
power. . .

Perhaps. Yet both groups have used it as though it's a voltage
reflection coefficient, and as justification for statements made about
the reflection of voltage waves.

If people want to argue about the reflection of power waves, I'll gladly
bow out and let Cecil and his colleagues resume their interminable
arguments without me. If anyone wants to discuss voltage or current
waves, I'll try to continue to contribute, as long I don't have to deal
with Slick and the insults he uses in place of supporting evidence.

. . .

So, it seems to me, everybody can agree as long as it is understood
that there are different meanings for the term "reflection
coefficient." One meaning, and its mathematical definition, applies
to voltage or current waves. The other, with a slightly different
mathematical definition, applies to the power transfer from a line to
a load. They are one and the same only when the reactive portion of
Zo (Xo) is ignored. It may or may not be acceptable to do so,
depending on the attenuation of the line and the frequency. Lossy
lines and lower frequencies yield more negative values for the Xo
component of Zo.

I suggest that those who are using "reflection coefficient" as meaning
the ratio of reflected to forward power so state, and restrict their
conclusions dervived from it to power waves.

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL