On Sunday, 19 June 2011 08:11:57 UTC+10, walt wrote:
On Jun 18, 4:05*pm, Owen Duffy wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2011 05:05:50 UTC+10, walt *wrote:

To restrict the quote for clarity Walt:

normalized line resistance at this point is 1.1547 chart ohms, or
57.735 ohms on the 50-ohm line, for a line impedance of 50 - j57.735
ohms.

This is inconsistent, if I normalise 50-j57.735 I get 1-j1.155.

The first line of the quote is correct IF you replace the work resistance with reactance, otherwise it is wrong.

Owen

You're right about the resistance vs reactance blip. That wasn't a
typo but a thought aberration. Sorry I didn't catch it.

Ok, well whatever it was, it was wrong as I said, but you have got it now!

It was not about precision, it is not about round off errors, it is the statement that "normaised resistance is 1.1547" when it is actually 1, normalised reactance though is 1.1547.

The comment was a byproduct of my reading and working through what you wrote, trying to understand it.

The other thing that was mentioned in discussion is the "non-dissipative resistance" which you seem to think must give rise to Gamma=1 at the source.. This "non-dissipative resistance" seems an invention that is quite flexible, quite convenient, because it seems that some posters regard radiation resistance as a "non-dissipative resistance" yet they have not argued that Gamma at the antenna equals 1.

Owen