Good day Pez,

Thank you. I now understand the challenge.

....Keith

pez wrote:

Dear Keith,

Your conclusions are surely
(specifically) valid
_if_
we recall their assumptions,
which require a transmission line
with purely _Real_ Z0.

But,
lets state the problem
following your terms.

If we have a piece of a proper Complex Z0 line
- that is one with Xo =/= 0 -
terminated by a passive Impedance
then
we still have to prove that
its Input Impedance Formula,
-which, don't forget, is a result of
a _mathematical_ theory-
results in a non negative real part,
equivalent with a passive lumped Impedance,
even if
it has already the _physical_ dimensions
of the Resistance.

In other words
it is neither enough that
it has already
the _physical_ dimensions of the Resistance
nor
it is a valid one
in the special Real Z0 case.

Sincerely,

pez
SV7BAX

wrote in message ...
| pez wrote:
| 3.
| The well known non-violation of the
| Principle of Conservation of Energy
| at any point of a line,
| has been found to be surely valid
| only at the terminal load.
| There is no proof yet of its validation
| at any other point.
| Once again this is a
| _claim_
| no one else has verified it.
|
| Is the following a proof?
|
| At any point on the line, the line can be cut and the load
| side replaced with a lumped impedance which presents the same
| impedance as was presented by the line with its load.
|
| The conditions on the source side of the cut do not change
| when this is done. Since this new lumped impedance is a
| terminal impedance, Conservation of Energy is not violated.
|
| Therefore Conservation of Energy will not be violated when
| this lumped impedance is removed and the line is restored
| to its former state.
|
| ...Keith