Thanks for the additional explanation, Herb. Sorry if I was too unclear.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
It would perhaps be possible for the software to have an 'auto' mode that started at a low frequency and increased it until the reflection came conveniently close to the limit of the range for best accuracy. But I don't really like auto procedures that hide what's really going on : what if you just wanted to look for partial reflections due to stubs or joints ? The critical thing is that you obviously felt you should test it at the working frequency of the system, and I can see why you'd start there. But as Herb says, what you actually need is to test at a frequency where the wavelength is comparable with the cable length. Presumably if you tried to display the results of something more than a wavelength away, you'd get multiple responses (repeated one wavelength apart). On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:55 PM hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 05:36 AM, Barry Jackson wrote: |