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

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

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

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

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:44:31 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

of a reference... Then no reason for you to
argue further.

Just a minute.

Reminds me of that Monty Python moment during the Black Plague and the
cart passing in the street.

Old man struggling with family against being put in:
"Wait! WAIT! I'm not dead yet!"

Family struggling harder:
"Oh YES YOU ARE!"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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

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