On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:06:18 GMT, gwhite wrote:

It is about DC to RF efficiency,

Put a number to it.

as I've been pointing out since my
first post, and which you initially commented was "nonsense"

Hi OM,

And so it remains with additional elaborations not quoted here.

but now seem to agree with.

Seeming is a rather insubstantial thing to hang your theories on.

"Impedance matching" meant in the normal sense of conjugate
matching for maximum transfer of power

And this reveals the error of "Seeming" because the so-called meaning
you ascribe is this same nonsense. Pay more attention to reading
instead of writing. It has been pointed out more than once, and by
several, that Matching comes under many headings. The most frequent
violation is the mixing of concepts and specifications (your text is
littered with such clashes).

is a misapplied small signal
concept/model. I think that is all I've really been saying.

And I preserved this clash quoted above as an example. If there is
any misapplication, you brought it to the table with this forced
presumption. The misapplication of S parameters to a large signal
amplifier is one thing, to project this error backwards into the
fictive theory that there is some difference between large and small
signal BEHAVIOR (not modeling) is tailoring the argument to suit a
poorly framed thesis.

None of your dissertation reveals any practical substantiation, hence
it falls into the realm of armchair theory. We get plenty of that
embroidered with photonic wave theory that is far more amusing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC