Richard Clark wrote:

everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match ...

and I see nothing about that in a halfwave line that instead achieves
a Zo match, not a conjugate. A conjugate has very specific properties
and you cannot provide an expression that offers the conjugate for the
situation:

You conveniently trimmed off the rest of my statement. When the line
is lossy, it is possible to achieve a conjugate match at a point but nowhere
else. The requirement of a conjugate match for a lossy line is that the
impedance looking in either direction is the conjugate of the other direction.
That can be achieved at a single point in a lossy system, e.g. at the load.
The rule that if a conjugate match exists at one point, then a conjugate match
exists at all points, is *ONLY* true for lossless systems.

Let's just juggle the notion of Zo matching out with a slight boundary
change:

source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=600 Ohm(resistive)

What is the expression you offer to support your statement that yields
the conjugate? Barring an answer, it follows your statement that

everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match ...

Again, please note that you deliberately snipped the context of that
statement, not a very ethical thing to do.

is yet another in a long list of absurdities.

Well, since you changed the contextual conditions away from a possible
conjugate match, nothing in the new example cannot be explained by
achieving a conjugate match, since a conjugate match is impossible in
the new example. What do you think changing the context proves? Nothing
that you have said is true at the center of the sun. How's that for a
context change?
--
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! =-----