On Apr 12, 3:37 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
So your only beef with my examples is that they do not
accurately model a "typical ham transmitter"?

Yes, I have said so about a half-dozen times now.

When you say that source impedance is a "variable", do you
mean this for a "typical ham transmitter", ...

Yes, the discussion is about typical ham
transmitters - nothing else matters to typical
hams.

So when a poster presents a problem in a context other "typical
ham transmitters", why do you dispute the answers. If you can't
discuss the problem in the context presented by the poster, why
not have the courtesy to stay out. Others may be interested in
learning about how things relate in contexts other than "typical
ham transmitters". Why sabotage the discussions by arguing and
arguing and then saying "Oh, I only meant my comments in the
context of "typical ham transmitters" WHICH WAS NOT THE CONTEXT
OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT. And kindly stop using the Texas A&M
example of TVSG and 1000 feet of line. It is clearly out of
your context of "typical ham transmitters".

Perhaps, in your dissertations on optics, it would be valuable
to state that they apply only in the context of "typical ham
transmitters". This might make it clear to the reader that
your suggestions are not generally applicable and could reduce
the wasted bits.

Which results have been disproved on the bench?

Please research the grand argument between Warren
Bruene, w5oly, and Walter Maxwell, w2du.

Are the experiments documented in Reflections chapter 19 and
19a representative examples?

As far as I know, the Bruene/Maxwell argument first saw
light in a QST article in the early '90s and has been
raging ever since.

My read of these chapters is that they offer compelling
argument and evidence (at least for the tube style
transmitters examined) that ham transmitters are linear*,
at least over their normal region of operation.

Linear is not the requirement for your source impedance.
Constant, fixed, and linear is the requirement for your
source impedance. Nothing you have presented had the
source impedance as a linear variable.

No indeed, the source impedance was a constant and resistive
in all my examples. That meets the needs for linear analysis.
Remember f(a+b) = f(a) + f(b)?

You are claiming that for "typical ham transmitters" the
source impedance is undefinable. This is quite at odds with
the exposition in Reflections chapters 19 and 19a. Or maybe not,
after all, Reflections is quite precise and claims only for a
specific class of ham transmitters, which, I suppose, may not
be typical. Though they look so to me.

So I take it that you no longer agree with the analysis presented
in Reflections 19 and 19a. I am pretty sure that you have stated
agreement in the past.

It would be valuable if you were to expand on the reasons for your
change of thought. What convinced you that "typical ham transmitters"
could not have their source impedance measured?

....Keith