"Dr. Slick" wrote:
wrote in message ...
Its not. Its 3.8 volts, which is entirely consistent with circuit
theory and 'classic' rho. Not only is it higher than the incident
voltage, it is higher than the source voltage.
Ok, now take the capacitor off, and measure the voltage at the end
of the inductor. What do you get?
Not possible for me. My scope probes are in the order of 15 pf, which
is signifcant for this experiment.
But try using classic rho and revised rho to predict the results for
a shorted load (Zl = 0). Only classic rho gives a reasonable result
for voltage and current.
And the reflected power can never be greater than the incident.
Classic rho does seem to produce all the proper voltages.
And using the equations implemented in a directional voltmeter,
we get back the expected Vfwd and Vrev.
Using revised rho does not produce the voltages computed with
circuit theory, nor those measured on the bench.
So revised rho does not seem to be the answer to the power
dilemma.
Not really. A rho= -1 means something else with a complex
Zo.
Hint: What is the center of the Smith Chart when it is normalized
to Zo=50+j50?
Let's review. Two competing proposals (classic and revised rho) were
used to predict the outcome of an experiment. The experiment was
performed; the results resoundingly in favour of classic rho.
Are you questioning the scientific method or just the results of
this experiment? If the former, the discussion should probably
move to a different group; if the latter, you are invited to
replicate the experiment and demonstrate that an error was made.
Otherwise, there is no reasonable choice except to accept that
classic rho correctly predicts the reflected voltage.
....Keith