"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message hlink.net...
Slick:

[snip]
I disagree completely. The theoretical impedance of a resonant
series L and C (which is lossless) is zero. So in a conjugate
match, where they cancel out, in an ideal loss-less world, it
would be equivalent to the series C and L not being there at all,
with the source and load 50 ohms free to pass max. power delivered to
the load.
[snip]

Which is exactly what happens for all energy passing through at
the resonant frequency of the series LC!

And for instance if you are testing with a sinusoidal generator at
that frequency that is exactly what you will observe.

Of course if you are testing with a broad band signal rather
than a sinusoidal signal lots of much more interesting stuff
happens. That all can be calculated simply by using the
full functional descriptions of the network/transmission
system, i.e. assuming Z = Z(p) where p = s + jw, etc, etc...



Well, of course i assume the conjugate match to occur at ONE frequency,
and with a small signal sine wave.




[snip]
??? if the square of the magnitude of the voltage RC is the power RC,
then your statement is incorrect.
[snip]

To which voltage reflection coefficient do you refer? :-)

No! The square of the magnitude of the voltage reflection coefficient is
not,
in general, equal to the power reflection coefficient.



Nope! Page 16-2 of the 1993 ARRL: rho=sqrt(Preflected/Pforward)

Look it up yourself, don't take my word for it.





The only "incorrect" ones are the reflection coefficients that are not
defined based upon simple non-singular linear combinations of the electrical
variables i and v.


I don't think you know what you are typing about here..



Slick, your view of the reflection coefficient world is far too narrow!

Widen your horizons, there is more than one way to go to hell, and
chosing a particular definition of a reflection coefficient and forcing
all others to believe in it is nothing short of bigotry!



Believe what you will... I ain't forcing anyone to accept anything!
I will tell you what respected authorities have written, though.

Jesus, dude. Do you want me to agree with you even when i think you
are incorrect?

Or would you prefer me to be honest?


[snip]
Maybe "Mother Nature" should take a Les Besser course...
[snip]

I am sure that Dr. Besser is an honorable and accomplished man despite
his obviously narrow views of "waves".



YOU are the one with the narrow views. Besser's courses are like
$1,200 a head. Do you think companies would pay him to steer them wrong?

Please!




Yes I "scanned" it and lost interest quickly, because of the gratuitous
use of mind boggling numerical tables in ASCII text on a newsgroup
posting!

I am sure that William did a lot of work whilst typing in those long
strings of numbers without error. Good work William!



Lost interest, or don't want to look at information that you disagree
with?



[snip]
Excellent work William. You are also showing how
a rho1 leads to ridiculous numbers for the equation:

SWR = (1 + rho)/(1 - rho)

The non-conjugate equation simply cannot handle
complex Zo.

Some people think we should throw out the SWR formula
completely, but this is complete nonsense, of course.

SWR = (1 + rho)/(1 - rho) works for 0=rho=1,
for very good reason, as it applies to passive networks only.

And the conjugate will always give 0=rho=1,
even with a complex Zo.
[snip]

Hey, again your view of rho and VSWR is too narrow.

Ask yourself what is the meaning of SWR in that formula
when rho is complex and SWR is complex!



Sigh... rho is the MAGNITUDE of the RC, so it isn't complex.

And SWR is never complex! And a negative SWR is pretty
meaningless!

If you want to rewrite the RF books, good luck.


Cheers,

Slick