Walter Maxwell wrote:
Cecil, the only difference that can obtain between reflection coefficents is in
magnitude and phase. It matters not whether a reflection is established by a
physical discontinuity or wave interference, the result is identical.

I agree the results are identical - It matters within the analysis but it
doesn't matter to the outcome. You and Steve get the same outcome. The
things you are arguing over is what happens inside the model each of you
is using.

Now I see your problem, Cecil, and that is because you still don't understand
why a reflection coefficient of 1.0 IS established when two waves equal in
magnitude but of equal and opposite phase occur at the match point.

Walt, please listen to this again. I understand why a reflection coefficient
of 1.0 is established in your model. I understand why it is impossible for a
reflection coefficient of 1.0 to exist in Dr. Best's model. It is now up to you
to understand why it is impossible for a reflection coefficient of 1.0 to exist
in Dr. Best's model. A reflection coefficient of 1.0 also does not and cannot
exist in an S-parameter analysis of the following example.

Cecil, we don't need to argue the conditions concerning S-parameter analysis,
because I've put my finger on the problem you're having with this entire
discussion, that is you're (and Steve's) unwillingness to understand that wave
interference can establish a reflection coefficient of 1.0 without any physical
means.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to establish a reflection coefficient of 1.0 in an S-parameter
analysis of the following:

100W XMTR---50 ohm line---x---1/2WL 150 ohm line---50 ohm load

The reflection coefficient at point 'x' in Dr. Best analysis is ABSOLUTELY
CONSTANT at 0.5. It NEVER changes from 0.5. It is always (150-50)/(150+50)
equals 0.5. It NEVER becomes 1.0 as it does in your analysis. A reflection
coefficient of 1.0 is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE using an S-parameter analysis of
the above configuration.

Using an S-parameter analysis, a reflection coefficient of 1.0 DOES NOT exist
anywhere and CANNOT exist anywhere. Until you accept that fact, you will continue
to be confused.

Let me say it once again: THE "REFLECTION COEFFICIENT" THAT YOU ARE USING HAS
A DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAN THE "REFLECTION COEFFICIENT" THAT DR. BEST IS USING.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR DR. BEST'S REFLECTION EVER TO EQUAL 1.0. Dr. Best's rho is
NOT equal to and is NEVER equal to SQRT(Pr/Pf). Why is that so hard to understand?
--
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! =-----