"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be
canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?

Cecil,

You don't seem to be a moron. Why are you acting like one?

I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

ah, you are learning well grasshopper. it was fun to tweak these threads,
but it gets old after a while.