Radio913 wrote:

You never measured the incident voltage. And you refused to measure the
end of the inductor, with the capacitor removed (even with the 15 pF, it should
tell us something about Vi).

I have done my lab work and produced results consistent with
classic rho.

You have not accepted my results, possibly because they are
inconsistent with your world view.

It is now your turn to hit the lab. You will, barring error,
obtain results consistent with mine. You will be able to
measure any parameter you wish, even do other experiments,
and you will find the results are always consistent with
classic, not revised rho.

The benefit of going to the lab is all yours. You will
learn how it works. Alternatively, perhaps, you will demonstrate
that classic rho is all wrong and revised rho rules. In this
case, if YOU have done the lab work, YOU will get (and deserve)
all the glory of a major revision to transmission line theory.

If I went back to the lab you are unlikely to accept any new
results from me any more than you have accepted those to date.
Sometimes seeing is believing.

.......On the other hand, perhaps you can convince me.

Predict what the measurement will be and what it will mean.
Tell me how you did the prediction. And allow some error
bounds. Say we assume the probe is between 15 and 30 pf.

Then we'll see.

This may be true, but are you saying that a capacitor can reflect an
RMS voltage wave that is greater than the one that charges it?

Yes indeed. Resonant circuits achieve this with ease.

...Keith

Absolutely incorrect! If capacitance is defined as Coulombs/Volt, then
how are you getting more coulombs than you put in? Remember, i said Root Mean
Square voltage.

How does a capacitor reflect more power than you feed it?

It's almost time for me to cut out of this discussion, if you still don't
understand me.

I can only suggest that you go to the lab. Given your statements
above, there is a great opportunity for hands on learning here.

....Keith