On Saturday, 18 June 2011 11:38:45 UTC+10, Owen Duffy wrote:
....
The ratio of V/I at the node where both lines are joined is given for a shunt stub by the inverse of the sum of the inverses of V/I for each.

That was a sidetrack, as Walt's example is a series stub and in that case, the V/I looking into the series combination is simply the sum of V/I for each.

Owen

On Jun 18, 3:36*pm, Owen Duffy wrote:
On Saturday, 18 June 2011 11:38:45 UTC+10, Owen Duffy *wrote:

...

The ratio of V/I at the node where both lines are joined is given for a shunt stub by the inverse of the sum of the inverses of V/I for each.

That was a sidetrack, as Walt's example is a series stub and in that case, the V/I looking into the series combination is simply the sum of V/I for each.

Owen

Owen, are you still saying my data is wrong? And that I've made a typo
that I missed? I can't believe I'm reading this. So please tell me,
where is that typo? And please explain further where you believe I've
made an error in calculating the data--I don't think so.

And for Cecil, you're worrying about common-mode currents on my series
stubbing? I mentioned in a earlier post to not worry about it, because
my series stubbing was used only as a tool to explain how the
canceling wave is formed, and was not intended as a practical
procedure for matching a line.

Walt

On Jun 18, 2:56*pm, walt wrote:
And for Cecil, you're worrying about common-mode currents on my series
stubbing?

Walt, the common mode comment was probably the least important thing I
said.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com