Walter Maxwell wrote:
I thought it was common knowledge that the reflected energy is totally
re-reflected in the forward direction when encountering the open or short
circuit at the matching point.

The voltages and currents are listed at the Z0-match point in the following
example:
rho=0.5
200W source---50 ohm feedline--+--1/2WL 150 ohm feedline---50 ohm load
Vfwd1=100V-- Vfwd2=200V--
Ifwd1=2A-- Ifwd2=1.333A--
--Vref1=0V --Vref2=100V
--Iref1=0A --Iref2=0.667A

Vref1 = Vfwd1(rho) + Vref2(tau) (this is the same as b1=s11*a1+s12*a2)
0V = 50V at zero deg + 50V at 180 deg i.e. the voltages cancel

Iref1 = Ifwd1(rho) + Iref2(tau)
0A = 1.0A at 180 deg + 1.0A at zero deg i.e. the currents cancel

Through wave cancellation, both the voltage and current go to zero in
the direction of the source. That's like a short for voltage and an
open for current.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers
compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent.

Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent.
Walt and I are discussing this in private email.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:07:13 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers
compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent.

Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent.
Walt and I are discussing this in private email.

So this makes the third occurence.

Richard Clark wrote:

W5DXP wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers
compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent.

Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent.
Walt and I are discussing this in private email.

So this makes the third occurence.

There is no pleasing you guys. Many say, "Take it to private email!",
and you say, "Don't take it to private email." What is a poster to do?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:28:00 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

W5DXP wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Your failure to confirm or respond to Walt's second correction offers
compelling further evidence that you are an unreliable correspondent.

Actually, it confirms that I am a polite correspondent.
Walt and I are discussing this in private email.

So this makes the third occurence.

There is no pleasing you guys. Many say, "Take it to private email!",
and you say, "Don't take it to private email." What is a poster to do?

Admit your repeated public errors
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:33:47 GMT, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Cecil, this is the error on Reflections that I told you about last week
that have already been solved in private correspondence. Why do you
make Walt come to this public forum to correct you for an error he has
already corrected in "private" emails?

You continue to support the evidence of not having read your
correspondence from Walt, or ignoring it to offer a knowingly
erroneous premise. This is unreliable correspondence at two levels.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC