On Jan 2, 9:38*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The impedance of the Thevenin/Norton equivalent source
is not V/I but rather the slope of the line representing
the relationship of the voltage to the current.

However, after the interference patterns have been
established, the reflected waves do not encounter that
source impedance. That is why the reflection coefficient
seen by the reflected waves is relatively unrelated to
the value of resistance in a Thevenin equivalent circuit.

I assume that you have not provided a reference to support
this assertion because you have not been able to find one.

You need to complete step 3 of the superposition process
to realize exactly what is happening. Reference the
irradiance equation from the field of EM wave optics
to ascertain the interference levels. What do you have
to lose by alleviating your ignorance?

Unfortunately optics do not do well at explaining
transmission lines since they do not extend down
to DC.

Keith, until you take time to understand destructive and
constructive interference, you will never understand what
is happening inside a source and will be forever confused
by your blinders-on-come-hell-or-high-water method of
thinking. Optical physicists figured out a couple of
centuries ago exactly what you are wrestling with now.
Your present problem was already solved before your
grandfather was born.

I have yet to find anything about transmission lines
that needs constructive and destructive interference
for explanation. Volts, amps and superposition seem
to be able to do it all, and have the added benefit
of explaining the behaviour for step functions and
pulses. With the volts, amps and superposition,
sinusoids are just a special case of the general
one.

I am unsure why some are content to constrain
themselves to solution techniques and explanations
that only work on the special case of sinusoids.

...Keith