On Mar 28, 10:20 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Can you demonstrate that without changing the configuration of
the experiment? Only then will your demonstration be convincing.

Anyone can demonstrate that by setting it up on the bench.
Guaranteed, you would see ghosting where you deny they exist.

So you find no flaws in my analysis but insist that the results
are incorrect. Hhhmmmmm.

And just for greater certainty, I forgot to mention that the
reflection coefficient from the line to the generator is 0 in
my experiment (generator impedance is equal to the line
characteristic impedance) so using the reflection coefficient,
there are no reflections.

Because it is an active source, not a passive resistor,
your reflection coefficient is wrong.

May I suggest that you check any reference on the subject of
reflection coefficient. In none of them will you find the
definition to have anything other than two impedances.

So as I said, things are not the same. And ghosts are a
transient phenomenom.

OTOH, because of noise, steady-state cannot exist
in reality so fixed ghosting is as close to steady-
state as we are going to get.

Sorry. No ghosts in my example.

For practical examples, you could consider any reference that
discusses driving digital signals down a transmission line.
One of the options for preventing reflections (which can
really mess up the reception of the signal), is matching
at the source. Others include matching at the load end.
The pros and cons of the various options will be discussed.

Please find errors without changing the experiment.

I did. Your simple-minded reflection coefficient is bogus.

Reflection coefficient is actually quite simple.

RC = (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1)

I challenge you to find any reference with a different definition.

But to explore your contention that RC is different when there
is an active source, could you kindly provide the expression
describing RC in such a situation.

It occurs to me that you may not be aware how to compute the
impedance of circuit with active sources. Its quite simple.
Replace the voltage sources with shorts and the current sources
with opens. Then using the rules for parallel and series
impedances, compute the result. Use this in the expression
for RC.

May I suggest again that obtaining a different result with a
different experiment is not a surprise.

The two experiments are only different in your mind, not
in reality. The results of both experiments are the same
and you can prove it to yourself on the bench.

Well, then just use my experiment so that we do not have to
argue about whether they are the same.

When you compute the quantity of the re-reflection that
my experiment generates, I will be convinced. But do not
be surprised that I am not convinced when you compute the
reflections for a different experiment.

....Keith