Good luck. There are a few "engineers" here I would let touch my toaster.

tom
K0TAR

Walter Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:40:03 GMT, Gene Fuller wrote:


Cecil,

I am happy to see that we are in agreement on this long-standing argument.

I explained this to Walt in some private e-mails about 18 months ago,
and I wrote similar explanations in this group. I was vilified by both
Walt and you.

I will summarize once again.

Both the Walter Maxwell model and the Steve Best model for this
transmission line problem work correctly. They are internally self
consistent, and they give the same physical answers. They obey the
standard laws of physics and mathematics. However it is not possible to
mix-and-match the models, using equations and definitions from one model
in the other.

Walt continues to mis-read Steve Best's QEX articles. He needs to throw
away all of his pre-conceived definitions about the meaning of specific
Vx components and read exactly what Steve wrote.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Hello again Gene,

What Steve wrote exactly, Gene, and I have read it exactly, over and over again,
is based entirely on an invalid premise that you and all the rest who, like you,
have expressed the notion that Steve's paper is the 'most brilliant and
definitive paper ever written on the subject. Unfortunately, it's both ironic
and tragic that a person so brilliant a mathematician, and knowledgeable in
transmission line technique, should make such a grievous error in formulating
the basis for his entire paper. It's also tragic that all of you who think his
article is so great also made the same error in not recognizing the problem in
the First Part of the article, his Eqs 6, 7, and 8, because they are invalid.

Steve used an equation in Johnson's "Transmission Lines and Networks" as the
foundation for the entire paper. But unfortunately he misunderstood the meaning
of the equation. He misunderstood it as early as 1998 when I pointed out why he
misunderstands it, but he denied that he misunderstands it , stating that it is
I who misunderstands it. Not a chance.

The equation he misunderstands is Eq 4.23 on Page 100 in Johnson, which is
explained and derived on Pages 98 and 99, to derive the voltage E of the
standing wave for any position along a mismatched transmission line. Steve's
misunderstanding is that he believes the equation expresses the value of the
forward voltage on the line. Consequently, his Eq 6 in Part 1 says that 'Vfwd =
the terms on the right-hand side of the equation copied from Johnson', while the
correct version is 'E = the terms on the righ-hand side'.

The difference between 'E' and Vfwd is so significantly different as to be
unbelievable that he, of all people, used it for this purpose, and it is also
unbelievable and shameful that you experienced engineers failed to recognize,
not only the error in Steve's equation, but the ramifications it had on the
domino effect on the remainder of his paper, especially making his equations 9
thru 15 in Part 3 invalid for general use.

I'd like for you and Cecil, and any other reader who believes Steve's paper is
correct, to rethink the definitions of the standing wave and the forward voltage
with the view toward another review of the paper. Then make that review and see
if you still believe the material appearing there is correct.

If you then still believe the paper is correct I'd like for you to let me know
the technical reason why you believe it's correct so that I can discuss it with
you. It's really worth that effort--don't just blow it off as another rant and
rave from Walt Maxwell.

Thanks for listening to what I think is an important issue.

Walt