"Tarmo Tammaru" wrote in message ...
"Dr. Slick" wrote in message
om...
What exactly do you mean by Zr at point z=0? i don't fully
understand the page you sent, and neither do you obviously.


Lower case z is distance, with the load at z=0

If the power RC is the square of the MAGNITUDE of the voltage
RC, then a voltage RC 1 will lead to a power RC 1.

He squares it to get the magnitude of the vector. There is still a phase
angle

How do you get more reflected power than incident power into a
passive network, praytell??


You don't. at gamma =2.41, the phase angle is about 65 degrees, and the real
part of gamma =1.0


What??!? if gamma, or rho, is greater than one, the reflected
power is definitely greater than the incident!




Now try this: using the conjugate formula, calculate gamma for the case
where the line is terminated in a short circuit, and tell us how that meets
the boundary condition.

Tam/WB2TT


Now try this: understand the page you sent me before you attempt
to discuss it with others!


Slick

Do I have this right?

Dr Slick examined the generally accepted formula for rho
and learned that its magnitude can be greater than one.

This appears to imply that reflected power is greater
than incident; something that would violate various
conservation of energy laws.

Dr Slick has therefore rejected the generally accepted
formula and produced one which does not result in
more power being reflected than is incident, thus
satisfying various conservation of energy laws.

Many people took issue with this redefinition of rho
and attempted to show why the generally accepted formula
is correct.

But that does not address the issue with the generally
accepted formula; how can reflected power be greater
than incident?

A clear explanation of why rho greater than one
does not violate conservation of energy would seem
to remove Dr Slick's objection to the generally
accepted formula and then everyone could agree
on the formula.

I doubt that any proof of the correctness of the generally
accepted formula will convince Dr Slick until it is
shown why it does not violate conservation of energy.

....Keith