On Dec 9, 12:21 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Well, I know what I mean by 1/4WL and in my
definition there is no way that (46.4 + 10) = 90.

Of course, those are *physical* degrees.

Yes indeed. And they have the benefit of concreteness
and they are easy to account.

We are
talking about *electrical* degrees. It is impossible
to get the reflected wave in phase with the forward
wave unless there is an electrical 90 degree phase
shift.

Except that I have offerred a number of examples
which you, the oracle, have declared are not
90 "electrical degrees".

If you lay the 43.4 degrees out starting at Z=0
toward the load on the Smith Chart and lay the
10 degrees out starting at Z=infinity toward the
source, you will observe the phase shift caused
by the impedance discontinuity.

I, too, can subtract (43.4 + 10) from 90 and get
a number. This does not, by itself, a useful
proposition make.

... the only
way to determine if something is 90 degrees
(according to your definition) is to ask you.

All one has to do is plot it on a Smith Chart
and the number of electrical degrees is obvious.

Please provide your algorithm in sufficient detail
that I can test it against the various examples.

So far, each time you have provided a rule, I
have constructed examples according to the
rule which the oracle has declared are not
90 "electrical degrees". Without a testable
rule that successfully distinguishes those
cases which are 90 "electrical degress"
from those which are not, there is nothing.

Having to ask the oracle does not suffice.

And the Smith chart is insufficient. One of your
examples began with "take the impedance
of 0-j567 and plot it on the chart", which is
okay, but it turned out that how that impedance
was created is important. It had to be a
capacitor (sometimes). No amount of Smith
charting will reveal that detail.

A testable rule, please...

....Keith