On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:17:58 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:

In addition, referring to your paragraph immediately above, where did you get
the idea that I said Steve's rho = SQRT(Pr/Pf)? Cecil, that's simply SWR, not
rho.

Let's take the 133.33W forward and 33.33W reflected example. rho equals the square
root of (33.33/133.33) = 0.5. That's not SWR, Walt. SWR cannot be less than unity.
That is indeed the physical voltage reflection coefficient.

You're right, Cecil, the print is so small on my screen I confused the r and f,
yes, it's rho.

At this point, Cecil, if you are still unable to accept the concept of
establishing a reflection coefficient of 1.0 through wave interference then
there is no use of continuing this discussion.

I accept the concept of a reflection coefficient of 1.0 for your model, Walt.
But a reflection coefficient of 1.0 is simply NOT allowed in the quasi-S-parameter
analysis that Steve uses. The S-parameter analysis works and has been used for
decades but an s11 of 1.0 simply never happens (except at a short or an open).
The reflection coefficients in an S-parameter analysis and in Steve's analysis
are ***PHYSICAL***. They are ***NEVER*** virtual. I'm sorry if that upsets you.
I don't know what else to say.

I'm sorry, Cecil, but you are missing the entire point of the discussion. I'm
not upset, I'm just dismayed that you don't see the light. So as I said above
there is no point in continuing the discussion. Some day you'll come to
understand the basis for the problem, and then I'm sure we'll agree.

C ya, Cecil, and take care!

Walt