On Apr 20, 9:23 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
For example, in all your examples you now provide a circulator
because you think this is the only way to control reflections,
when in fact, all that is necessary is a source impedance that is
equivalent to the line impedance and there will be no reflection.

Your above statement has been proved wrong in any number
of bench experiments.

Actually, most bench experiments demonstrate the opposite.
Were you to take a moment and look at the schematic for any
typical signal generator, you would find the resistor that matches
the generator to the line and prevents reflection of signals
incident upon the generator.

In other cases you claim that problems are insolvable because
insufficient information is provided about the generator. In fact,
all you need to do is use the source impedance to compute
the reflection coefficient and the problem is solved.

Again, proved wrong by any number of bench experiments.

It would be educational if you could describe one of these
experiments.

Remember, you are looking for a re-reflection of the reverse signal
at a generator whose source (output) impedance matches the line
characteristic impedance.

You claim that superposition does not work in a generator.

Not that it doesn't work - just that it is impossible
for a reflected wave to compete with an active dynamic
source. The source essentially ignores the reflected
wave like a fire hose ignores you trying to spit up
the hose against the flow.

Either it works, or it doesn't. Superposition in circuit theory
is not dependant on the relative magnitudes of any of the
sources.

You will find that the alternatives work better, ...

Sorry Keith, I stopped listening to you when you asserted
that I is voltage.

Darn. I knew that typo would show up again. On the other
hand, I can take some pleasure in accurate predictions.

....Keith