"Dr. Slick" wrote in message
om...
"David Robbins" wrote in message
...

Incorrect. You need the conjugate in the numerator if the Zo is
complex. If it is purely real, WHICH MOST TEXTS ASSUME, then you can
use the normal equation.


sorry, the derivation for the table in the book i sent before is for the
general case of a complex Zo. they then go on to simplify for an ideal
line
and for a nearly ideal line... nowhere does a conjugate show up.


Please post this derivation again.

sorry, i don't have time for this. its really quite simple, just apply
kirchoff's and ohm's laws at the connection point and it falls right out.


When they say "ideal line" do they mean purely real?

yes, purely real with no loss terms.



and that reference you give is not for a load on a transmission line, it
is
talking about a generator supplying power to a load... a completely
different animal.

Not at all really. The impedance seen by the load can be from
either a source or a source hooked up with a transmission line. It
doesn't matter with this equation.


the reference you gave is looking at a generator connected to a load. true,
it doesn't matter if there is a transmission line in between the generator
and the 'load' but the impedance being used is the one transformed back to
the generator end of the line, not the one at the far end of the line... so
basically that equation is not a transmission line equation, it is a
generator to load reflection calculation done to maximize power not to
satisfy kirchoff.