Uhhh... I think this is what I said (in other words of course)....I
think...73
--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2004 10:01:04 -0800, (Nick Kennedy) wrote:

I see this paper as a variation on a line of reasoning that goes like
this:

1) A conjugate match results in maximum power delivered to a load, so
it is good.

It is also a cliche unless another outcome was expected. As there are
other types of match, "good" becomes a speculation of value
judgements.

2) A connection where the load has much higher resistance than the
Thevenin equivalent source resistance results in high efficiency, so
it is also good.

At this point it is well to point out that there is no expectation of
"efficiency" implied or expressed in conjugation. Good follows from
application, application does not drive good.

3) Since (1) and (2) are both good, they must be equivalent to each
other. Therefore a conjugate match is what it is not. This is an
apparent contradiction.

"is what it is not" I am the Walrus? Coo-coo ca choo!

Two goods have no inherent relationship. Scratching an itch, and
solving world hunger also have no equivalency. Contradictions and
correlations can be forced across innumerable topics by this standard.

4) The contradiction is resolved by postulating a special kind of
resistance that adds to the source resistance. However, it has no
physical effect and exists only to resolve the contradiction in (3).

This has descended into the conventional mixing of theories to argue
one example. There is no reason to call on any resistance to perform
matching for efficiency's sake. There is no reason to enforce
efficiency upon a conjugate match.

A Conjugate Match is simply the observation of the inverse Load
Impedance presented to it by the source. The quality of that is that
the combination of inverse reactances yields a purely resistive
solution. Conjugation is an artifice to protect the source from
circulating currents and elevated potentials, it has no other purpose.

The Zo Match is not a Conjugate Match although it may be in special
circumstances. A Conjugate Match is not a Zo Match although it may be
in special circumstances. The Zo Match closely mimics the Thevenin
topology.

The Thevenin Theorem never contained a resistance to later argue its
necessity. Thevenin offered a source with an Impedance. An Impedance
"may" contain resistance, but it is not a necessity. The argument for
dissipationless resistances within the source automatically reject
themselves from the Thevenin category through being non-linear.
Attempts to re-embrace this linearity are convincing (the flywheel
argument of the finals' plate tank); but it does not deny the physical
resistance rendering heat that inhabits the source interior.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC