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

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I said that other impedances do
not meet the specified preconditions for my
Part 1 article so the answers are irrelevant,
not wrong.

If a 50 ohm Z0 and 50 ohm load is specified, do
other Z0s yield wrong answers? Of course not.
Those answers are merely irrelevant to the
specified preconditions.

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

You have not proved any errors exist in my Part 1
article. You keep trying to change the specified
preconditions from average power to instantaneous
power but that is simply unethical.

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

The set(A) conditions are not altered. The set(B)
conditions are altered. Exactly what conditions
are you referring to?

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

Of course, you absolutely avoid using any tool that
would prove you wrong. So what's new?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com