On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:31:42 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:14*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:09:29 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:
the series stubbing appears in Reflections, Chapter 23, with
the same values as I presented above, with detailed diagrams shown in
each step in the progression of the explanation. I hope these diagrams
can help.

In other words, consult:http://www.w2du.com/Chapter%2023.pdf
Figures 1 through 5

As I said in the previous post, the experts were referring to the
output of the RF amp as not establishing a reflection coefficient rho
= 1.0, which has put me in a corner.

Hi Walt,

How so? *(What is the corner?)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


The corner I'm in, Richard, is that In Reflections 3, Chapter 25,

In other words, consult:
http://www.w2du.com/r3ch25.pdf

I assert that Steve Best's Eq 8 in the first part of his three-part
article appearing in QEX is invalid, because it gives incorrect
answers when I plug in what I believe are correct values of reflection
coefficients. Yet his equation agrees with that of Johnson on Page 100
of his "Transmission Lines" text book. In addition, a mathematics
expert whom I respect says Best's equation is correct. So I've got to
make the decision whether to delete my criticism of his equation or
leave it in and be accused of criticizing him incorrectly. What to do!

Walt

Hi Walt,

So this is not only double-deep, through your work to Steve's, but
triple deep then through Steve to Johnson.

Lacking the necessary, culminating edition of Johnson's, I still don't
know what the corner is.

Lacking the complete math from all sides of the argument (not
somewhere I would like to go), and noting that many authors (not
making attributions here) frequently ignore some relatively basic
mandates where they don't matter, to then expand into situations where
they do matter; then I don't really trust heavily editorialized math
analysis.

I note your summary statement for Steve that you find contentious,
viz.
"A total re-reflection of power at the match
point is not necessary for the impedance
match to occur."
is one where I would agree with Steve; but not necessarily for reasons
brought forward. What is worse, this simple statement may mean three
things to two people.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC