On 16 jun, 20:50, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:16*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 16, 6:04*pm, K1TTT wrote:

would you care to provide us with the general equation for A given a
complex load impedance and a line length other than a multiple of 90
degrees?

It's simply the relative phase angle between the forward voltage and
reflected voltage at the source resistor. I trust that you can manage
that without my help.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

ah, so you do have to calculate the voltages, which would requires two
transformations of the length of the coax plus calculating the
magnitude and angle of the complex reflection coefficient then adding
them all up. *still sounds like more work than necessary.

Hello all

If I do not make any mistake, my numbers agree with yours Cecil, it is
a pleasure (my procedure was the old plain and simple standard) :)
I know, 1000 examples probe nothing, only one popperianists man can
bring a black swan at any time and falsify the induction :). but now
seems more clear to me you have a predictive model that render
identical numbers of my classical one, at least in basic tests, it is
a step forward to better considerate your efforts and with goodwill
begin to establish basic points of agreement.
I recognize it is a more simple approach the classic method (as said
K1TTT) to me too, but also I think not always one good method or model
it is more convenient to understand another useful view of phenomena.
Phasorial solutions are good, practical and likely complete electric
solutions but in my opinion they do not married very well with other
more general electromagnetic and physics models (wave guides perhaps?
I have not experience); unification has its advantages too (However my
favourite answer was definitely the Roy's one in the fourth post of
the thread, hi hi...)

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

PS: Owen do not be upset with me :) most of my available newsgroup
time it is spent in translate to english without flaws that may induce
to misinterpretations (all of you are very demanding with precise
wording and exact definitions), one mistake and I will need three or
four painly translations more to clarify :D

Today I tested your interesting formula with a Half wave 50 ohms TL,
loaded with 100 and 25 ohms respectively. Vs=100 Vrms, Rs=50 ohm give
2:1 VSWR. In both cases then Pf 50 W, Pr=5.5 W, Pnet=44.4 W. Giving
Vf=50 V and Vr=16,6 V aprox. for both loads.
I am using (Pf=Pnet / (1-Rho^2) and Pr=Pnet / ((1/1/Rho^2) -1) formula
which not gives different sign to Vr, in such case applying to
PRs=(((Vs/2)-Vr)^2)/Rs = ((50/2)-16.66)^2/50. I get PRs=22,2 with
both loads because the sign of Vf (always +) from simple Pr and Pf
formulas, changing the sign of Pr render Rs=88,8 W for Prs (OK).

I have in my disk a very descriptive, advisable and friendly article
downloaded from: http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~jstiles/622/...es_package.pdf

In page number 88 there is a agreement with your formula in "Is zo of
aa HF ham tx typycally 50+j0?".