Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
I give up trying to communicate with you

You did that long ago and were in denial only till now.

You created your own reality based on your feelings. Nobody
else is capable of experiencing it.
--
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 Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:19:47 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
You created your own reality based on your feelings. Nobody
else is capable of experiencing it.

Hi Cecil,

See? You haven't given up afterall!

Feelings hmmm? Yeah, I suppose I get pretty emotional over your wild
nonsense of sqrt of 1 could be -1. It's called laughing until your
sides ache (not really, more a chuckle). You need to ride your bike
more and skip the library.

Practice smiling once a day, read an eh posting from Stefano to break
the ice.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Feelings hmmm? Yeah, I suppose I get pretty emotional over your wild
nonsense of sqrt of 1 could be -1.

It is well known that (-1)^2 = +1. You sometimes quote Johnson as a
reference. From Johnson, section 1.6, page 16: "The ratio 'k' is called
the reflection coefficient." "The terminating impedance is zero at this
end, provided the internal resistance of the generator is negligible;
hence for the generator end"

the reflection coefficient, "k(g) = -Z0/Z0 = -1"

--
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 Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:41:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Feelings hmmm? Yeah, I suppose I get pretty emotional over your wild
nonsense of sqrt of 1 could be -1.

It is well known that (-1)^2 = +1.

You cannot show that any two powers used to compute Rho are negative
to fulfill this shift of your logic.
I probably should have said rho^2 = Pref/Pfwd. When Pref = Pfwd,
rho can be plus or minus one.
Rho can never be plus or minus one on the basis of sqrt (Pref/Pfwd).
To insist otherwise is the joke that gets me emotional with the
chuckles and gets you into a huff claiming you can't talk about it.

You sometimes quote Johnson

Hi Cecil,

This again demonstrates how you are an unreliable correspondent. You
ascribe an action to me that is simply not true.
From Johnson, section 1.6, page 16:
Is NOT a citation. Who is Johnson? Certainly you feel free to
associate my name with him, but Dr. Samuel Johnson never said any such
thing in his life. Note that I always give full names and complete
titles to my citations - unreliable correspondents are lazy
correspondents who throw statement after statement against the wall
until one sticks and they call that their authority. Read any of Gene
Nygaard's postings for boundless examples.

Cecil, this laziness of yours is part and parcel to your poor
recitations and flawed logic. You squirm to pull away from your
absurd example of imparting direction of power flow based on an
erroneous concept of finding negativity extracted from a dependant
variable based on negative power ratios. You are attempting to recast
that argument into other equivalent terms of Rho, while maintaining
this charade of that same sign inversion supporting your un-referenced
direction issue. You cannot demonstrate the direction flow sign being
constructed from a negative Rho on the basis of sqrt(Pref/Pfwd).

If you feel you cannot communicate with me, you certainly have that
right; but for this issue I am not the only one and it is not due to
my lack of communication ability (as I am probably the only one here
credentialed to that matter).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
You cannot show that any two powers used to compute Rho are negative
to fulfill this shift of your logic.

It doesn't require either power to be negative. All it requires is a
short circuit. +1 simply has two square roots. rho = -1 for a short
circuit and rho = +1 for an open circuit. All (rho = -1) requires is a
short at the end of a transmission line as explained in _Transmission_
Lines_and_Networks_, by Walter C. Johnson when he was chairman of the
Princeton EE Dept. Here's how he calculated rho for a short:

rho = (Z1-Z0)/(Z1+Z0) = (0-Z0)/(0+Z0) = -Z0/Z0 = -1

So your argument is with Dr. Johnson whom I am merely quoting. The
(rho = -1) simply indicates a 180 degree phase shift in the reflected
voltage at the short.

From Johnson, section 1.6, page 16:
Is NOT a citation. Who is Johnson?

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you are ignorant of Johnson. In 1950,
his book was one of the series of McGraw-Hill Electrical and Electronic
Engineering Series with Terman as the consulting editor and containing
textbooks by Kraus, Skilling, Terman, and others.

... it is not due to
my lack of communication ability (as I am probably the only one here
credentialed to that matter).

Must be really difficult to communicate when you are so special as to
be the "only one here" who is "credentialed to that matter". Many of
the posters to this newsgroup have written books and articles which
I find to be communicated rather well.
--
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 Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:48:32 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
You cannot show that any two powers used to compute Rho are negative
to fulfill this shift of your logic.

Walter C. Johnson when he was chairman of the
Princeton EE Dept. Here's how he calculated rho for a short:

rho = (Z1-Z0)/(Z1+Z0) = (0-Z0)/(0+Z0) = -Z0/Z0 = -1

So your argument is with Dr. Johnson whom I am merely quoting.

No my argument is with your perversion of yet another source in your
vain attempt to draw a faulty conclusion in applying direction as the
basis of the -1 drawn from your observation
I probably should have said rho^2 = Pref/Pfwd. When Pref = Pfwd,
rho can be plus or minus one.
I notice you continually flee from your assertion to prove a different
statement "Dr. Johnson" made.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you are ignorant of Johnson.

The unreliable correspondent once again, in laziness, again fails to
offer which Johnson. Presumably Walter, but you don't say, and
several Dr. Johnsons have been employed as sources in this group.
Your characteristic failure to attend boundary conditions is
consistent with your inability to preserve your assertion that somehow
a negative association is made with the sqrt(Pref/Pfwd) and that it
proves a change of direction (wholly unsubstantiated by any but your
own Johnson).

Must be really difficult to communicate when you are so special as to
be the "only one here" who is "credentialed to that matter". Many of
the posters to this newsgroup have written books and articles which
I find to be communicated rather well.

And with whom you have such difficulty communicating with.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
All (rho = -1) requires is a
short at the end of a transmission line as explained in _Transmission_
Lines_and_Networks_, by Walter C. Johnson when he was chairman of the
Princeton EE Dept. Here's how he calculated rho for a short:

rho = (Z1-Z0)/(Z1+Z0) = (0-Z0)/(0+Z0) = -Z0/Z0 = -1

So your argument is with Dr. Johnson whom I am merely quoting. The
(rho = -1) simply indicates a 180 degree phase shift in the reflected
voltage at the short.

Quite false. Negation is not simply a 180 degree phase shift.

And if Walter C. Johnson is worthy of the respect he receives
here, he has certainly never said it is.

....Keith

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

All (rho = -1) requires is a
short at the end of a transmission line as explained in _Transmission_
Lines_and_Networks_, by Walter C. Johnson when he was chairman of the
Princeton EE Dept. Here's how he calculated rho for a short:

rho = (Z1-Z0)/(Z1+Z0) = (0-Z0)/(0+Z0) = -Z0/Z0 = -1

So your argument is with Dr. Johnson whom I am merely quoting. The
(rho = -1) simply indicates a 180 degree phase shift in the reflected
voltage at the short.

Quite false. Negation is not simply a 180 degree phase shift.

Yes, it is, in the reflected voltage. A short has a voltage rho of -1
indicating a 180 degree phase shift between the incident voltage and
the reflected voltage. An open has a voltage rho of +1 indicating no
phase shift between the incident voltage and reflected voltage. The
rho for current has the opposite sign from the rho for voltage at a
short and open. And sure enough, the reflected current is 180 degrees
out of phase with the reflected voltage.

And let's see about a few values. How about?

0.5 + j0.5 Vs -(0.5 + j0.5) or -0.5 + j0.5 Vs 0.5 - j0.5

Sure enough. The first value is at 45 degrees and the second value
is at 180+45 degrees. The third value is at 135 degrees and the
fourth value is at 180+135 degrees.

And if Walter C. Johnson is worthy of the respect he receives
here, he has certainly never said it is.

Refer to Fig. 1.13 on page 20. The voltage reflection coefficient
at the open end is +1. The current reflection coefficient at the
open end is -1.
--
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, W5DXP wrote:
'I probably should have said rho^2 = Pref / Pfwd, rho can be plus or
minus 1."

Terman mentions a power ratio at the bottom of page 97 of his 1955
edition:
"This definition of standing-wave ratio is sometimes called voltage
standing-wave ratio (VSWR) to distinguish it from the standing-wave
ratio expressed as a power ratio, which is (Emax / Emin) squared.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI