On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:13:32 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

I ordered the book from the other side of the world because I wanted to
be very sure of my answers next time around.

Hi Ian,

It will contain much of interest. For instance, it relates to Owen's
moribund thread "the power explanation." Page 205, third paragraph
from the bottom conforms to one of my recent posts the
"Although the power delivered by the source to the line is thus
shown to be reduced by the amount of the reflected power returning
to the input terminals ... the implication of the latter reasoning
that the reflected wave power is entirely absorbed in the source
impedance without affecting the total output of the signal source
generator, is incorrect."

Contrary to that teaching, is discussion on page 203, last paragraph.
It relates to figure 9-26, clearly illustrating a mismatched line fed
by a source with a source resistance. This may be upsetting to many:
"At the signal source end of the line ... none of the power
reflected by the terminal load impedance is re-reflected on
returning to the input end of the line."
The ellipsis reveals that the source Z matches the line Z.

To begin at the beginning of multiple reflection coverage, go to the
same named section (8.8) on page 174. It is not his complete say on
the topic, but it starts here formally. To add insult to someone's
injury, his math includes source Z. However, by the same token
Chipman explicitly states:
"... the shape of the standing wave pattern ... is in no way
affected by the quantities Vs, Zs and Rho-s at the source."

I would also note the irony in that Chipman expresses reflections in
lines in terms of power. To subdue that irony, I would also admit he
is quick to shift to energy when the usage of power is to lead to
problematic solutions (so, using power as an expression in this
context is allowable by precedent as being informal).

Of course, Chipman must be accepted as an authority for any of these
issues to be considered valid.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC