On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 00:28:12 +0100, "Ian White, G3SEK"
wrote:


AN1526, from which I'm quoting above, supersedes AN282. It was written
about 25 years later in an attempt to clear up that inherited mess of
loose definitions... but apparently with limited success.


Hi Ian,

25 years after the 60's, and yet AN282 is still published by Motorola
in 1991 by my copy. Further, it appears to survive through to 91
without any appearance of AN1526 which superseded it. This would
suggest that this application note, if published in the 90's
represents quite a bulk of material (nearly half again the total AN's
by number following 1991) published in 10 Years? 1968 + 25 = 1993
which suggests rather a revolution in thought over two years and
clearly not within the scope of credibility. These publishing date
games are too inspecific with your reference clearly in front of you.
Don't you know to surer accuracy?

I still see nothing of substance, merely suggestion:
That is certainly a statement requiring some careful
thought, especially since the term 'output impedance' is somewhat
misleading [so even Motorola admit that]. ... as described in [AN282]
it is the conjugate of the LOAD impedance at the fundamental operating
frequency which allowed the transistor to 'function properly' [when the
load impedance was varied in a test jig]."
Does not say what it is, but what it was by testing - hardly
revolutionary nor upsetting.

Certainly you could come up with a smoking gun couldn't you? Complete
with an actual, demonstrable specification for the item I offered
(seeing as you still lack any concrete example). What does your new
and updated resource say about the MRF 421. Does it abandon that
discussion entirely to this new-age era of all being unknowable?

This is still nay-saying and cut-and-paste philosophy without any
correlatives to actual equipment in the field. Why is it so simple to
correlate for me, and for you to dispute through t'ain't so with no
further elaboration?

For example you countered my query as to "did you build your own RF
deck" and the paucity of specifics could create a vacuum. What
impedes your own counter examples of actual implementation? What
prevents your discussion of design issues considered that are germane
to this side-bar? Where is the scope and depth? What service do you
offer those mythical "lurkers" or do we agree that they are simply an
egoists device?

If you think for yourself, be prepared to stand and deliver.
Otherwise this commentary is more posture than content.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC