On Apr 8, 11:44*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You seem to be saying that the answers would be
completely different if you chose a different
impedance for the non-existant transmission line.

There you go again, trying to shove your words
into my mouth. (Pattooieee!) Please don't do that.

Did you not say that 50 ohms for the non-existant
line was the correct impedance because other impedances
would yield the 'wrong' answer?

You have apparently done the math and found it
to be valid so, once again, you have to change
the specified conditions in order to try to make
your point.

I don't recall changing anything. I'm still with
Fig 1-1 from your paper, which did not include
non-existant transmission lines.

A Z0 of 50 ohms is the *only* characteristic
impedance that will meet the specified precondition
of zero average interference. Choosing any other
characteristic impedance will move the example
outside of the scope of my Part 1 article.

Did you not say that adding 1 wave length of transmission
line does not alter the conditions? Are you now saying
it does?

I
understand why you want to do such a thing but
obfuscation, diversions, and straw men are not
part of the scientific method. My Part 1 article
has a very narrow scope. Please abide by it.

Yes. That is why I prefer the simplicity of Fig 1-1
without the non-existant transmission lines.

...Keith