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

The flaws have been pointed out and you have ignored them.
THE REFLECTED WAVE DOES NOT SEE Rs=450 OHMS IF THE SOURCE
IS TURNED ON. THE REFLECTED WAVE DOES NOT EXIST IF THE
SOURCE IS TURNED OFF. Take a look at:

http://www.w2du.com/r3ch19a.pdf

Sorry. No ghosts in my example.

Correction: No ghosts in your wet dream. I suggest that you
patent your ten cent solution to eliminate reflections and
sell the patent to Tektronix since you have obviously rendered
all those expensive circulators in the world obsolete. And why
would anyone go to the trouble of installing a 20 dB pad when,
according to you, a single ten cent resistor will perform better?

Reflection coefficient is actually quite simple.
RC = (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1)
I challenge you to find any reference with a different definition.

Sorry, all my references are at my new QTH but here are
a few from memory:

rho = SQRT(Pref/Pfor) = Vref/Vfor = Iref/Ifor = (SWR-1)/(SWR+1)

One of the options for preventing reflections (which can
really mess up the reception of the signal), is matching
at the source.

Yes of course, one can do that with a circulator or pad. One
cannot accomplish "matching at the source" with a ten cent
resistor. Such an assertion is sophomoric.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com