Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Where are the equations that include delta-t or dt?

Unfortunately, for that type of detail, I need to reference
my technical library which is 125 miles away at my new QTH.
Please stand by.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So let it be written, so let it be done. :-)

That's much more in accordance with your omniscience, Jim.

Apparently you intend to concern yourself with waves which never
existed, forever.

The keepers of the s-parameter analysis will be interested
to know that you can prove that s11(a1) and s12(a2) never
existed. Have you contacted them with your insight?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:23:24 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Actually, it was posted because of doubt about your claim "Remove the
load, and you remove interference." Please describe this phenomenon
in more detail. The implications are huge.


Hi Jim,

Implications aside, it would help us all if you simply describe your
doubt instead of having me fish for your problem.

Hello again Richard,

Seems we're having some difficulty communicating so I'll do you the
favor that you rarely extend to anyone, and speak as plainly as
possible. The subject matter is interference; a result of the
superposition of waves. Your assertion regarding the phenomenon is:
"No load, and any issue of canceling fields is strictly limited to
what goes on between the ears."

My question, plainly put is: What in the hell are you talking about?

Thanks and regards,

Jim, AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

The keepers of the s-parameter analysis will be interested
to know that you can prove that s11(a1) and s12(a2) never
existed. Have you contacted them with your insight?

You should notify them immediately of this outrage! (Then afterwards
you can verify that s-parameters must indeed always have non-zero values.)

:-)

ac6xg

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:23:26 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Your assertion regarding the phenomenon is:
"No load, and any issue of canceling fields is strictly limited to
what goes on between the ears."

My question, plainly put is: What in the hell are you talking about?

Hi Jim,

This quote of mine is simply an example of poetic license, it is to
suggest that without a load, interference is a concept trapped in the
mind and unrealized = there is no interference. You asked several
times about what do the waves DO, and certainly this was one of many
expressions I've offered that responded to that. I didn't see why
repetition was necessary, or that I had to construct yet another
elaboration, unless you were fishing for stylistic variation. I would
be happy to go there! ;-)

It helps to know what your doubt was about, as we would have gone
around the track several times to home in on one sentence.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:

This quote of mine is simply an example of poetic license, it is to
suggest that without a load, interference is a concept trapped in the
mind and unrealized = there is no interference. You asked several
times about what do the waves DO, and certainly this was one of many
expressions I've offered that responded to that. I didn't see why
repetition was necessary, or that I had to construct yet another
elaboration, unless you were fishing for stylistic variation. I would
be happy to go there! ;-)

Please, no. Repetition in lieu of elaboration would only deepen the
mystery of why someone would hold such an untenable viewpoint. ;-)

73,
Jim AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You should notify them immediately of this outrage! (Then afterwards you
can verify that s-parameters must indeed always have non-zero values.)

You are implying that they must have a zero value.
If that is true, an s-parameter analysis is an
exercise in futility.

I'll make it easy for you.

s11(a1) = 5 at zero degrees

s12(a2) = 5 at 180 degrees

b1 = s11(a1) + s12(a2) = 0

Is s11(a1) = 0? _______

Is s12(a2) = 0? _______

Is b1 = 0? ______
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 20, 1:27 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
....
Please, no. Repetition in lieu of elaboration would only deepen the
mystery of why someone would hold such an untenable viewpoint. ;-)

73,
Jim AC6XG

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/04/16/

Cheers,
Tom

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:27:33 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Please, no. Repetition in lieu of elaboration would only deepen the
mystery of why someone would hold such an untenable viewpoint. ;-)


Hi Jim,

And thus we return to the unanswered question:

Implications aside, it would help us all if you simply describe your
doubt instead of having me fish for your problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

You are implying that they must have a zero value.
If that is true, an s-parameter analysis is an
exercise in futility.

Ok Cecil. I give up. You're right. The waves from the canceled
electromagnetic fields are there and they are not there.

Trying to have a rational discussion with you - now that's an exercise
in futility.

73, ac6xg