Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
As I said, the reflection coefficient at '+' can be calculated
accurately using just the characteristic impedances, as shown by Born
and Wolf.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Answer: it isn't hard for me to understand.

Question: Why must you inevitably get personal in these technical
discussions?

What is the rho
of the following?

source---50 ohm feedline---+---150 ohm feedline---load150

"Just the characteristic impedances" are given. You say you
can "calculate rho accurately" from just that. So prove your
statement. (load150 means the load is not equal to 150 ohms)

That's a different problem, isn't it.

If you say rho = (150-50)/(150+50) then you are mistaken.

Let the record show that I didn't say it. ;-)

If
Born and Wolf say rho = (150-50)/(150+50) then Born and Wolf
are mistaken.

You mean to tell me you don't even know what you're arguing about here?
If you understood and had paid any attention at all you'd have known
what Born and Wolf would say, and you wouldn't be speculating so wildly
about it.

rho = Vref/Vfwd and, contrary to what you say,
there is *NOT* enough information given to calculate rho.

That's _exactly_ what I would say about it.

It wouldn't be possible to evaluate r23 without knowing the load
impedance. And as I pointed out before, the 150 ohm feedline must be
some known number of quarter wavelengths in order to know which form of
the equation to use.

73, Jim AC6XG