wrote:
I assume, then, that from now on you will constrain the use
rho=Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) to situations where Pref is zero?

No, the equation from Ramo & Whinnery from which the above
is developed is

Pz-/Pz+ = |rho|^2 and take the square root of each side.

Like I said at first, I made a boo-boo and should have put absolute
value signs around 'rho'. You are completely ignoring that response
of mine.

My gosh, you work hard to find disagreement. In my sentence above,
please update "there are NET reflections" with "there may be NET
reflections".

Shirley, you can understand that the first statement is an absolute-
exclusive and the second statement is a conditional-inclusive and
are logically opposite statements, one false and the other true.

If readers spent just a small fraction of their effort interpreting
for agreement instead, discussion would flow so much more smoothly.

Interpreting an exclusive statement as an inclusive statement is
logically invalid.

Sometimes, there are net reflections existing where there is no
impedance discontinuity.

Excellent. Agreement.

Nope, not agreement. Your absolute statement was false. My conditional
statement is true. If you had said 'sometimes', your statement would have
been true instead of false. You made a logical error. It's no biggie.
I left off the absolute magnitude signs. It's no biggie.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----