Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message link.net...
Slick: [snip] And not the complex conjugate of Z0. : : This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG! The reflection coefficient is zero only when the Zload is the conjugate of the Zo. Go look it up in any BASIC RF book! Slick [snip] Easy now boy! You'r almost as bad as me! ok...taking some deep breaths here... It is entirely possible, in fact I know this to be true, that there can be more than one *definition* of "the reflection coefficient". And so... one cannot say definitively that one particular defintion is WRONG. But we need a definite definition, otherwise everyone has their own standard, so when i say "reflection coefficient", you will will know what i mean, not something else. When i say "Elephant", hopefully the same animal pops into your head. If the definition of the reflection coefficient is given as rho = (Z - R)/(Z + R) then that's what it is. This particular definition corresponds to the situation which results in rho being null when the unknown Z is equal to the reference impedance R, i.e. an "image match". If the definition is given as rho = (Z - conj(R))/(Z + conj(R)) then rho will be null when the unknown Z is equal to the conjugate of the reference impedance conj(R), i.e. a "conjugate match". Correction: rho = (Z - conj(R))/(Z + (R)), the conjugate being only in the denominator. Slick |