On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Keith Dysart wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:04*am, Roger Sparks wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:06:04 -0800 (PST)

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:12*am, Roger Sparks wrote:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:00:31 -0800 (PST)

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:36*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
After discovering the error on Roy's web page at:

http://eznec.com/misc/Food_for_thought.pdf

I have begun a series of articles that convey "The Rest
of the Story" (Apologies to Paul Harvey). Part 1 of
these articles can be found at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm

Looks good. And well presented. There is only one small problem
with the analysis.

Thanks Keith. I see what you are doing now, although I still don't understand your logic in faulting Cecil on the instantaneous values. I agree with you that the instantaneous values can be tracked, but don't see a fault in Cecil's presentation.

Roy and I went around a few times on whether the source reflects in a case like this. The source reflection controls whether the 50 ohm source resistor acts like 50 ohms to the reflected wave, or acts like a short circuit in parallel with the 50 ohm source resistor.

--
73, Roger, W7WKB