In message , rickman
writes
On 9/30/2015 12:57 PM, John S wrote:
On 9/30/2015 10:12 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jeff writes
On 29/09/2015 14:31, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/29/2015 4:40 AM, Jeff wrote:

Physicists and engineers do not mix gain and loss. Gain is always
shown
as a positive number and loss as a negative number.

For instance - a system shows a gain and loss of +3, +5, +2, +1.
What
is the total gain or loss of the system?


Of course they do, particularly when dealing with a quantity that is
defined as a LOSS.

I have never heard any engineer when asked the question 'what is that
attenuator' reply minus 3 dB. It is always 3dB. It is always called a
3dB attenuator, not a minus 3dB attenuator.

Jeff

Yes, and the power out is never +3db relative to the input. It is
always -3db.



Which is often referred to as 3dB loss (or 3dB down), ie a positive
quantity.

And Jerry still hasn't answered my question about him losing -$10.

Ever since he was presented with "reliable sources" he has been silent.
I was beginning to think that he would accept no source at all if it
didn't agree with him. However, his silence now is a plus for him.

And no need to go on about the more dramatic aspects of this
conversation. If everyone is happy with the information indicating
that return loss is conventionally a positive dB value, let's move on.

While I may enjoy showing the "truth" to someone who is being
obstinate, I don't wish to make anyone feel like I'm rubbing their nose
in it.

So let's get back to the original question. Was it ever really answered?
I think it was made slightly more complicated by the fact that the
antenna feedpoint impedance was not purely resistive, but was actually
around 20-j130 (at 14 MHz),

Was there any advantage in having the coax paralleled (both for 20 ohms
resistive, and for 20-j130)?
--
Ian