Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
For lossless transmission lines, |rho| = Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd). You don't
even need to know the load and/or source impedances.

How did you get a -1 out of your |rho|?

I probably should have said rho^2 = Pref/Pfwd. When Pref = Pfwd,
rho can be plus or minus one. I used |rho| to indicate a magnitude,
sans phase angle, not an absolute value.
--
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! =-----

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:15:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
For lossless transmission lines, |rho| = Sqrt(Pref/Pfwd). You don't
even need to know the load and/or source impedances.

How did you get a -1 out of your |rho|?

I probably should have said rho^2 = Pref/Pfwd. When Pref = Pfwd,
rho can be plus or minus one. I used |rho| to indicate a magnitude,
sans phase angle, not an absolute value.

Hi Cecil,

You obviously don't respect/know the difference between a dependant
variable (rho) and independent variables (P).

Rho is a dependency of the interface, not a translatable value you are
forcing illogic to perform. You really need to ride your bike to the
library more and offer these poor examples less. Since Rho is the
dependant variable, even squared (for you to force a -1 into this
charade) requires a concurrent observance of a negative in the right
hand side (negative power - perhaps if you were in a black hole).

The long and short of it is that this confirms Jim's observance of
your forced math serving your canards rather than logic. Oh, and
please stop offering and polluting Chipman as a resource when you've
only copied one page.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Since Rho is the
dependant variable, even squared (for you to force a -1 into this
charade) requires a concurrent observance of a negative in the right
hand side (negative power - perhaps if you were in a black hole).

You seem to have forgotten some junior high math, Richard. There is
no requirement for a negative anywhere in order for the square root
of a number to be negative. The square root of 100W/100W has two
values, plus or minus one, and sure enough, an open or a short will
cause 100% reflection.

BTW, I copied that page in Chipman with which you are having such a
problem and I don't see the problem you described. Absolutely nothing
said about reflections from the source. In fact, the source has the
same impedance as the transmission line so there are no reflections
from the source.
--
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! =-----

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:34:43 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Since Rho is the
dependant variable, even squared (for you to force a -1 into this
charade) requires a concurrent observance of a negative in the right
hand side (negative power - perhaps if you were in a black hole).

You seem to have forgotten some junior high math, Richard. There is
no requirement for a negative anywhere in order for the square root
of a number to be negative. The square root of 100W/100W has two
values, plus or minus one, and sure enough, an open or a short will
cause 100% reflection.

Hi Cecil,

If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative. There is no possibility of Rho being
negative by your description. You should start biking to junior high.


BTW, I copied that page in Chipman with which you are having such a
problem and I don't see the problem you described.

My problem? Quote me rather than give me your tarted up remembrance
of what I said. Clearly your head cold cannot answer for such
consistently unreliable correspondence.

Absolutely nothing
said about reflections from the source. In fact, the source has the
same impedance as the transmission line so there are no reflections
from the source.

Duh!

Cecil, You are going to run your bike's mileage warrantee out by
pedalling to the library for one page copies at a time. Why don't you
spend a couple hours there and read it instead?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative.

Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative?????
WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in
the way of accepted math principles. Hint: If one of those powers
is negative, the square root will be imaginary.

Cecil, You are going to run your bike's mileage warrantee out by
pedalling to the library for one page copies at a time. Why don't you
spend a couple hours there and read it instead?

I've got page 139, the one you referenced, in front of me. It says
absolutely nothing about reflections from the source. All it seems
to say is that conjugately matched loads accept more power than
non-conjugately matched loads but we knew that already.

Incidentally, pages 140-143 discusses "Transmission line sections
as two-port networks" using the h-parameter analysis. Who said
transmission lines didn't have ports?
--
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! =-----

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:41:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative.

Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative?????
WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in
the way of accepted math principles.

Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with
excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a
hoot!

Hint: If one of those powers
is negative, the square root will be imaginary.

We can all tell where imagination springs from. Give me better than a
hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your
emotional markings.

I've got page 139, the one you referenced, in front of me. It says
absolutely nothing about reflections from the source.

Duh!

Two for Two. You still can't do any better than your tarted up
versions of what you "think" I said? Your ability to find a Google
copy is no better than your cut-and-paste library skills. You can
(and have) spin these fantasies out to 600 postings if you put your
mind to it. Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman
at some future date?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative.

Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative?????
WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in
the way of accepted math principles.

Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with
excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a
hoot!

Owls are not really all that intelligent, Richard, even if they are
MENSA's mascot. You really should upgrade to parrots if you want an
intelligent bird.

Give me better than a
hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your
emotional markings.

By convention, direction can change power to a negative number. That is
positive power flowing in a negative direction. To the best of my
knowledge, there is really no such thing as negative energy as would be
required for negative power.

Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman
at some future date?

I've got page 139 in front of me. It doesn't say what you said it said.
It says a conjugate match will ensure maximum power transfer.
--
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! =-----