Hi Walt,

I was the one who called this paper "crap", and I will stick to that
characterization. (The wording is a bit strong, and I apologize for that.)

I have no argument with the notion of maximum power transfer or
non-dissipative resistance. My comment was based on the extensive use of
a goofy analogy to steam turbines. This sort of extended mechanical
analogy is pointless and unprofessional.

Unless we are attempting to retrain displaced marine propulsion
engineers, why should anyone assume that the reader will be more
knowledgeable about steam systems than electrical systems? It is likely
that the targeted reader is already more conversant with electrical systems.

This sort of analogy proves nothing. There is no "proof" that
non-dissipative resistance exists. This term is a "definition", not
something that can be proven. If one looks carefully, all of the "proof"
arguments are circular in nature. Indeed, this is the only possibility
when dealing with a definition. Self-consistency is all we can hope to
achieve.

The 29 pages of the subject paper could be reduced to less than 10
without any loss of important content. The other 19 pages are crap.
Majority rules.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Walter Maxwell wrote:
I believe this thread originated with the paper on non-dissipative resistance by
Bob Lay. The original thread was entitled, 'Max power transfer theorem'. It
seems to have gone off track after a few postings.

I posted a msg on the original thread yesterday, 3-4-04, which at present is the
last posting in that thread. Since my posting there is pertinent to this
thread, I'd appreciate it if you'd all take a look at my thread there, rather
than have me repost it here, because it's rather long, but what I believe is an
important contribution to the thread.

TIA,

Walt Maxwell, W2DU