On Jan 2, 9:24*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
With two measurements you will obtain the correct
impedance.

With two measurements you will obtain an impedance.
It will not be the impedance needed to calculate
the reflection coefficient seen by the reflected
waves.

You should really spend some time looking for a
reference to support your assertion that "It will
not be the impedance needed to calculate the
reflection coefficient seen by the reflected
waves."

You will not find one.

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
You should really spend some time looking for a
reference to support your assertion that "It will
not be the impedance needed to calculate the
reflection coefficient seen by the reflected
waves."

You will not find one.

You have got to be kidding, Keith. Even some of the
people on your side will admit that the effective
reflection coefficient for a source supplying zero
power is |1.0| nowhere near the value you calculated.
I believe that is what Roy said.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 2, 2:36*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You should really spend some time looking for a
reference to support your assertion that "It will
not be the impedance needed to calculate the
reflection coefficient seen by the reflected
waves."

You will not find one.

You have got to be kidding, Keith. Even some of the
people on your side will admit that the effective
reflection coefficient for a source supplying zero
power is |1.0| nowhere near the value you calculated.
I believe that is what Roy said.

Bluster!

I am just waiting for a reference.

Still can't find one, can you?

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
I am just waiting for a reference.
Still can't find one, can you?

Since the reflected wave is reflected, the reflection
coefficient cannot be zero.

If the reflected wave is not reflected, there
would exist current in the source, but there
is none.

There are no references for pathological thinking.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 2, 11:58*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
I am just waiting for a reference.
Still can't find one, can you?

Since the reflected wave is reflected, the reflection
coefficient cannot be zero.

If the reflected wave is not reflected, there
would exist current in the source, but there
is none.

There are no references for pathological thinking.

Still can't find one? ?

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Still can't find one? ?

I haven't looked for one because I don't want to waste
my time. If there was a reference, Mr. Maxwell or Dr.
Bruene would have reported it by now but their argument
continues to rage, just like yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jan 3, 11:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Still can't find one? ?

I haven't looked for one because I don't want to waste
my time. If there was a reference, Mr. Maxwell or Dr.
Bruene would have reported it by now but their argument
continues to rage, just like yours.

Excellent. So there is NO reference that claims
that the output impedance can not be used to
compute the reflection coefficient.

There are many references that do.

So that settles it, then. Many references on one side,
none on the other. It is time for you to accept the
standard methodology for computing the reflection
coefficient at a generator. And no, I am not holding
my breath while I wait.

And the arguments that I have seen between Mr. Maxwell
and Dr. Bruene are on a completely different matter.

...Keith