wrote:
That's what you get when you use the surge impedance and compute
surge rho. Try steady state impedance for steady state rho.

rho = (0-50)/(0+50) = -1 as expected

Heh, heh, the steady state impedances are V/I ratios which are results
incapable of causing anything. Your logic is a closed loop. The V/I ratios
cause the rho to be -1. Therefore, rho=-1 causes the appropriate V/I ratios.
Can you name any other result in reality that causes itself? Hint: Only
physical impedance discontinuities can cause reflections. Image impedances
are incapable of causing anything since they are an end result.
--
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! =-----

wrote:
On the other hand...

if
Vrev = rho * Vfwd
then
rho^2 = (Vrev^2/Z0) / (Vfwd^2/Z0)

So
(Vrev^2/Z0) / (Vfwd^2/Z0)
can be greater than one.

If Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) can not be greater than 1
then either
Pfwd is not equal to (Vfwd^2/Z0)
or
Prev is not equal to (Vrev^2/Z0)

Intriguing result, is it not?

Only to the uninitiated. Contradictions don't exist in reality.
They only exist in human minds. That should be a clue. |rho1| is
not always equal to |rho2|.
--
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! =-----

David Robbins wrote:
is that paper on the web somewhere??

Perhaps someone will offer it to you as a .pdf file.
--
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! =-----

Dr. Slick wrote:
The definition of Rho has been set for "God-knows-how-long!"

Actually, 'rho' has contradictory definitions. (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1)
is not always the same value as Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) because of
interference energy.
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 3 Sep 2003 23:16:39 -0700, (Dr. Slick) wrote:


I think Reg put it best:

Hi OM,

If you are going to quote him as an authority supporting you, you
should at least accept his offer of a bridge to settle this hash
shouldn't you? You can't run far on one legged stilts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Who ever said he was an authority?

All he did was open up a can-o-worms by showing
how the "normal" Gamma equation is not always
less than 1 for passive networks, which is good
because i wouldn't have found out about the correct
conjugate equation (when Zo is complex).

But it is wise to pick and choose your fights, eh?

And i'd rather argue with someone who is making
sense at any particular point in time.

Show us a passive circuit that reflects more power than
you feed it (incident), on my Daiwa meter,
and i will be VERY impressed.

I'm be waiting a long time for that schematic....


Slick

Dr. Slick wrote:
I can't wait to hook it up to see more reflected power than
incident on my DAIWA meter, that would be very interesting.

If that's really what you want to observe, connect the meter backwards. :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
That's what you get when you use the surge impedance and compute
surge rho. Try steady state impedance for steady state rho.

rho = (0-50)/(0+50) = -1 as expected

Heh, heh, the steady state impedances are V/I ratios which are results
incapable of causing anything. Your logic is a closed loop. The V/I ratios
cause the rho to be -1. Therefore, rho=-1 causes the appropriate V/I ratios.
Can you name any other result in reality that causes itself? Hint: Only
physical impedance discontinuities can cause reflections. Image impedances
are incapable of causing anything since they are an end result.

Was it not only a few days ago that there was agreement that

If it is acceptable to claim that sometimes there is no reflection
at an impedance discontinuity, then it must also be acceptable to
claim that sometimes there is a reflection where there is no
discontinuity.

?

....Keith

"Dr. Slick" wrote in message
m...
Cecil Moore wrote in message
...
Dr. Slick wrote:
If you agree that the Pref/Pfwd ratio cannot be greater than 1
for a passive network, then neither can the [Vref/Vfwd]= rho be
greater
than 1 either.

Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) cannot be greater than one. (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1) can be
greater than one. Both are defined as 'rho' but they are not
always equal. (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1) is a physical reflection coefficient.
Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) is an image reflection coefficient.


I agree that Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) cannot be greater than one for a
passive network.

(Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1) can be greater than one, for passive networks
and certain combinations of complex Z1 and Z2. I feel this is incorrect
usage of this formula, which should be limited to purely real Zo.
A [rho] that is greater than one gives meaningless negative SWR
data, and is limited to active devices.

it only gives negative swr values if you incorrectly use the lossless line
approximation to calculate vswr from rho. that is the incorrectly applied
formula in this case. that formula is not valid for a lossy line, you must
go back to the original definition of VSWR=|Vmax|/|Vmin|. which as we have
also noted is not meaningful on a lossy line as Vmax and Vmin are different
at each max and min point because of the losses in the line affecting both
the forward and reverse waves.

is that paper on the web somewhere?? i figured it had to be something
with
computing powers that was getting mixed in here some how, i think that is
the only place you can end up with conjugates in transmission lines. so i
assume its not a simple 1 page derivation from basic root principles, it
must take a whole new language to express it.

=====================================

Yeah ! Trouble is nobody has yet dug up the ancient stone on which the
language is carved and translated.

There are too many unjustified * 's to make any sense out of thse recently
discovered hieroglyphics.

I am reminded of my old dear maths master, Mr Stevens. God had blessed him.
He was a rare survivor of the machine gun bullets, shrapnel, flame-throwers,
and chlorine-gas breathed in without a gas mask while hanging on the barbed
wire in no-man's land between the trenches, Shell-fire-Corner, Ypres,
Belgium, 1917. He spoke in a hoarse whisper and I always sat in the front
row of desks in his classes so I could better hear him. He kept people
awake at the back of the class by throwing missiles - sticks of chalk of
which he was amply stocked.

He referred to Factorial(x) = x! = x Exclamation mark, as "x By Jove" and so
endowed on me a lifelong love of the beauty of mathematics. He also taught
History in similar vein.
---
Reg.

On 4 Sep 2003 15:36:28 -0700, (Dr. Slick) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 3 Sep 2003 23:16:39 -0700, (Dr. Slick) wrote:


I think Reg put it best:
snip
Who ever said he was an authority?
snip
I'm be waiting a long time for that schematic....


Slick

You're been thinkin' he done put it best and is no authority - uh huh.

Are all such sources of your support held in similar esteem?

I suppose the translation to the greater bulk of what you had to say
is no.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC