Keith Dysart wrote:
In light of your new approach, which I wholeheartedly
endorse, perhaps you will reconsider your response in the
other threads and try to "understand the nature of the
source starting with the simplest one".

I have pointed out the error in your calculation of the
reflection coefficient but you have ignored it. I don't
know what more I can do. You seem to be allowing output
and blocking input.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com