Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:19:52 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: Cecil and others, even authors of books, have said - - - - - |rho|^2 cannot be greater than 1.0 - - - - ==================================== Would you change your minds if I describe a reflection-coefficient bridge, which anybody can construct, which accurately measures values of | rho | up to its greatest possible value in transmission lines of 2.414 There's no catch! For some reason Dr Slick has remained silent to my acceptance of his challenge to find such an instrument. Perhaps he's gone away to think about it. --- Reg, G4FGQ Ah Reg, (Too many, like this season's crop of presidential hopefuls, have usurped the role of clown, sorry to demote you - but you know the irony in that gesture, you at least gained it honestly. ;-) No catch? You stand little chance of interest as that would imply an end to it - what fun when the stream of debate circles endlessly around simple issues of arithmetic gone bad? So, in their stead and knowing that anything practical is anathema, and that anything observed as being cut-and-paste without context is shunned as a cheap smear, give us the works. [Here's hoping that it adds to the bottom line of my bountiful discredit.] 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Calculus not needed (was: Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit) | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Reflection Coefficient Smoke Clears a Bit | Antenna | |||
Mother Nature's reflection coefficient... | Antenna |