On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:54:45 +0100, "Ian White, G3SEK"
wrote:

Certainly you could come up with a smoking gun couldn't you?

If you can't get it from the key paragraph I quoted, then read all 15
pages of AN1526. If you still can't see that your notion about "device
output impedance" is shot clear through, then neither Motorola and I can
help.

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.

You know perfectly well that AN1526 won't say anything about your
specific pet device, so what was the point of asking that question?

Quite obvious isn't it? (Speaking of rhetorical questions....) You
fail to offer ANY of your personal knowledge outside of the
cut-and-paste rebuttal that you loath as being inferior to thinking
for oneself. I supplied my experience and thought both with
correlations and supplemental insights that you condemn through
association; and you cannot dredge up any affect your understanding of
AN1526 bears on the literal design application of the MRF 421. In
short, an academic appeal to it being unknowable with the concomitant
ivory tower snub of application (including your own!).

Does it abandon that
discussion entirely to this new-age era of all being unknowable?

And that is an even worse travesty of what Motorola and I are saying.

You AND Motorola? Are you two in a joint partnership? Twice you draw
on this stale illusion where your own original experience offers a
vacuum of discussion.

If you want to measure the *true* output impedance of an MRF 421 - as
distinct from the load impedance given in the data sheet - then go ahead
and do it. After all, you're the one who claims it is an important
design parameter.

This merely underlines you having ignored my having posted both
commentary AND data to that effect, and you remain silent in regard to
your own efforts that could prove insightful to the meaning imparted
by AN1526 to you. To this point, and through my prodding you have yet
to offer any substance of its importance aside from snippets that are
drawn from an unknown context that you challenge me to review. And to
what end if I were to; and offer your understanding lacked in its
regard? More denial and little detail of substantiation? Who does
your thinking for you? You toss that in my face and then abandon the
field when I put it to you to explain how it bore to the application
you built under your own hands. Was this piece-de-resistance a
Heathkit? Why does its detail of implementation remain cloaked from
your discussion?

I'm the one who says it is (a) not what you think it is; and (b) not
important anyway.

Is there any doubt? (a) remains deliberately vague and (b) is,
frankly, contradicted by the hew and cry that attends your
considerably extended fulmination.


Now it's up to other people to judge the technical truth of the matter.

Ah Ian,

The TRUTH. As if there is only one answer and its altar is not to be
approached. Appeals to educating the lurker is vanity. I enjoy that
game as much as the rest of you, especially when you guys, like
wallflowers, come up so stylistically drab and technically
un-prepared. :-)

Too many mix Truth with explicit admission that this discussion is
not important anyway.
The quality of your rebuttal already proves your sentiment.

Now, your offering any further discussion that relates to your
experience; the role of this AN1526 to it; and some, even if plagued,
specification for any source you designed to, if that follows; then we
may actually get around to a dialog over the topic. Anything less
will be repetition and would again belie your closing sentiment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC