Thanks for the suggestion, Reg, and it's absolutely true. But even more
information is thrown away when you take the average of the power.
Remember the statistician who drowned when crossing the creek whose
average depth is only three feet.

As soon as anyone starts arguing about average power waves, I'm outta
here. I'd just as soon argue about the temperature of ghosts.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:
Dear Roy,

To reduce the amount of bafflegab to an absolute minimum why don't you just
say that immediately the value of the reflection coefficient is squared (to
allow 'power' to be introduced) half of the information it contains is
tossed into the nearest garbage heap.

Any conclusions drawn from following calculations are inevitably ambiguous
and highly suspicious to say the least.

To mention one well-known example, that's why it is impossible to deduce the
value of the line-terminating impedance from the calculated SWR.

Ignorance is the root cause of these silly, time-wasting arguments.

Get back to basics, erase Smith Charts, mis-quoted worshipped idols, and
ill-conceived inventions from your minds and start afresh from R, L, C, G, F
and little t.

Fortunately, the success of proposed missions to Mars does not depend on the
deliberations of this newsgroup.

Cec, by the way, are there any vinyards in Texas? It *is* as big as France.
----
Yours, Reg, G4FGQ

Roy Lewallen wrote:
As soon as anyone starts arguing about average power waves, I'm outta
here. I'd just as soon argue about the temperature of ghosts.

You probably don't discuss light waves all that often, eh? :-)
--
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 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----