Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Dysart wrote:
So there is NO reference that claims that the output impedance can not be used to compute the reflection coefficient. If I say I am not going to look for a reference to "creation" in The Bible, are you going to assert there are no references to creation in The Bible? Good luck on your ridiculous assertions. So that settles it, then. No, it is not settled. Please reply to my posting where I proved the reflection coefficient is plus or minus one, the exact opposite of what you assert. And the arguments that I have seen between Mr. Maxwell and Dr. Bruene are on a completely different matter. If you think that, it's prima facie evidence that you are really confused. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 3, 1:56*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: So there is NO reference that claims that the output impedance can not be used to compute the reflection coefficient. If I say I am not going to look for a reference to "creation" in The Bible, are you going to assert there are no references to creation in The Bible? Good luck on your ridiculous assertions. You do seem to like to clip the important bits. It was your sentence: "If there was a reference, Mr. Maxwell or Dr. Bruene would have reported it by now but their argument continues to rage" that made it clear you did not expect to be able to find a reference. So that settles it, then. And that was what settled it. No expectation of a reference... Then no reason for you to argue further. ...Keith |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Dysart wrote:
It was your sentence: "If there was a reference, Mr. Maxwell or Dr. Bruene would have reported it by now but their argument continues to rage" that made it clear you did not expect to be able to find a reference. Make that *easily* find a reference and you will have it correct. Just because I am lazy is not a proof that the reference doesn't exist. And that was what settled it. No expectation of a reference... Then no reason for you to argue further. Just a minute. What about the proof I offered that the actual reflection coefficient is 1.0 based on Bird wattmeter readings? The Bird tells us that at the source terminals, the forward power equals the reflected power. rho = SQRT(Pref/Pfor) = plus or minus 1.0 -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Dysart wrote:
Excellent. So there is NO reference that claims that the output impedance can not be used to compute the reflection coefficient. That is probably a false statement. I just haven't wasted my time looking for a reference that uses those exact words. There are many references that do. I seriously doubt that they say what you are asserting. Please produce those references. In another thread, I proved your assertion wrong. A Bird wattmeter placed at the output of your source will read forward power = reflected power. The reflection coefficient can be calculated from that. rho = SQRT(Pref/Pfor) = plus or minus 1.0 -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 3, 2:10*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote: Excellent. So there is NO reference that claims that the output impedance can not be used to compute the reflection coefficient. That is probably a false statement. I just haven't wasted my time looking for a reference that uses those exact words. There are many references that do. I seriously doubt that they say what you are asserting. Please produce those references. One has been directly provided, though many more are available using the google searches previously suggested. But that one is infinitely more than those available supporting the opposite view. In another thread, I proved your assertion wrong. Asserting that you have proved an assertion wrong is not the same as proving it wrong. A Bird wattmeter placed at the output of your source will read forward power = reflected power. The reflection coefficient can be calculated from that. rho = SQRT(Pref/Pfor) = plus or minus 1.0 Of course. With one side of the Bird wattmeter left open, it will happily measure the reflection coefficient of that open. This says nothing about the reflection coefficient of the line connection with the source. ...Keith |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Keith Dysart wrote:
Of course. With one side of the Bird wattmeter left open, it will happily measure the reflection coefficient of that open. This says nothing about the reflection coefficient of the line connection with the source. Any way you choose to look at the example, the same amount of joules are flowing into the source as are flowing out of the source during any particular time period. That is a power reflection coefficient of 1.0 Take the square root to find the voltage reflection coefficient of plus or minus 1.0 -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Standing Wave Phase | Antenna | |||
Standing wave on feeders | Antenna | |||
Dipole with standing wave - what happens to reflected wave? | Antenna | |||
Newbie ?: I've Built A Simple 1/4 Wave Dipole for 2 Mtrs. Could IMake a1/2 Wave? | Homebrew | |||
What is a traveling-wave antenna? | Antenna |