On May 18, 6:13*pm, John KD5YI wrote:
So, you're saying that the Smith chart is wrong?

The Smith Chart is a tool - a blank graph. How could it be wrong?
Like any tool, it has limitations and can be abused.

On May 19, 4:05 am, Wimpie wrote:
Would you please remind me to the example where I was completely wrong
with S11?

----50 ohm--+--1/4WL Z0=100--200 ohm load

s11 is 0.3333 at point '+'. Put it in a box and s11 magically becomes
0.0?

The first s11 is a physical reflection coefficient, the second s11 is
a virtual reflection coefficient. The virtual 50 ohm impedance is
lossless. All the power is dissipated in the 200 ohm resistor at a
reflection coefficient of 0.3333.

Did you ever DESIGNED some serious electronic hardware?

No, but being a good designer has nothing to do with the present
academic exercise. W8JI is a good designer yet concepts like yours led
him to "measure" a 3 ns delay through a 100 uH air-core 80m loading
coil when the actual delay time is closer to 21.5 ns. That's what
happens when one relies on the lumped-circuit model and ignores
reflected energy. The relative phase of a standing wave doesn't change
with length which gives the illusion that the signal is traveling
faster than the speed of light, i.e. zero phase delay.

I will turn the coil example into a brainteaser and post it to my web
page.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com