Roy:

[snip]
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
This is interesting. But how did it lead you to the equation you
determined must be correct? That is, what definition of reflection
coefficient did you start with, where did you get it, and how did you
get from there to the reflection coefficient equation you presented?

I assume that, consistent with the admonition in the last paragraph of
your posting, you were "careful to follow through and be consistent with
your definitions, measurements, algebra, and arithmetic". It would be
very instructive for us to be able to follow the process you did in
coming to what you feel is the "right answer".

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
[snip]

I followed up with a complete, and I hope simple and easy to follow,
algebraic development in another nearby posting. Have a look and let us
know what you think.

BTW... I don't necessarily agree with Slick's defintition of the reflection
coefficient and for sure, his is not the one I use. But I will defend to
the death his right to use the one he defines, as long as all of his
subsequent calculations and measurements are consistent with that
definition.

Slice and I will always end up with the same voltages v and currents i, it's
just that our wave variables a and b won't agree!

Viewing "waves" is just a viewpoint! One has to view them "through" an
instrument called a reflectometer. When viewed through ammeters and
voltmeters we will all measure the same things.

Only the "electricals" the v and I are "real"! The "waves" the a and b are
just different manifestations of v and i as viewed through and instrument
[reflectometer] using a, perhaps arbitrary, reference impedance, or matrix
transformation.

Sorry Cecil. :-)

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL.