On May 28, 1:56*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:18:44 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:
Richard, I'm not sure I understand thrust of your theme correctly. Are
you accepting my measurement data as proof of my position, or are you
including my data as a happy state of ignorance on this topic?

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

You understand my "truly kabuki" suitably enough, which means the
others must be lurking in the shadows unable to step up to the bench
of their own demonstrable scientific commitment.

Your numbers show evidence of source resistance. *Like any real
resistance, in a complex mix of reactances and phases, all
superposition energies collapse to reveal a net value that is either a
caloric break-even, gain, or loss. *This real resistance is the
experience of EVERY correspondent here.

As for your position, your proposal appears to exhibit source
resistance where you deny its reality. *This is a longstanding
difference we have had and I presume will never be bridged.

If you had never opened the door to the conjugate match, because what
you argue with your data as support is properly an image-Z match, then
you would be on a firmer foundation, rhetorically.

The Z match more close corresponds to the maximum available power
transfer theorem and models of Thevenin/Norton sources. *Neither of
these sources demand a resistor - this was a high school physics
artifact with about as much rigor as Sunday school is to theology.

Terman explicitly offers Thévenin's Theorem on the bottom of page 74
continuing onto page 75. *He describes the Z match in the middle of
page 76. *Your argument is what Terman calls an "image-impedance
basis." *Note the term "basis," it has been my question to you for
years as to what basis you have used. *I have never gotten an explicit
response.

In the second paragraph of 3-8 we find Terman discuss the conjugate
basis of matching for maximum available power delivery. *I won't
belabor what can be read by the multitudes for themselves. *

However, beyond this discussion, Terman offers an APPLICATION where
its topology is entirely congruent with the propositions being bandied
about here. *Please turn to pages 262, 263 footnotes to observe plate
resistance and grid-leak resistance being offered - not Zs but Rs. *

This last point, yet another distraction, probably brings a collective
sigh of relief as the shadows are emptied with those who throng to
argue the meaning of resistance instead of measuring it at their own
bench.

Truly Kabuki.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hello Richard,

I must be honest with you, Richard, for over the years I have often
been in a quandary after reading some of your posts--I simply don't
comprehent what you're saying in them. I often have to turn to look at
some one else and ask " wad't he say? wad't he say?" For example, I
don't know what a 'kabuki' is.

You say my numbers show evidence of a source resistance. Then you also
say "This real resistance is the
experience of EVERY correspondent here." On the contrary, my
understanding is that Keith Dysart and Owen Duffy don't agree with
that. Have I misunderstood their posts? Then you say,"What is more
comic is both sides couldn't agree more! Truly Kabuki." Again, what
is 'kabuki'? In other words, to both sides agree or disagree? Which is
it?

In another paragraph you say, "As for your position, your proposal
appears to exhibit source resistance where you deny its reality. This
is a longstanding difference we have had and I presume will never be
bridged." I totally misunderstand that statement, especially a
longstanding difference that I didn't know we had. And although my
measurements of source impedance (or resistance) indicate their
reality, I have never knowingly denied their reality. I can't
understand how you could have reasoned that I denied it.

Now we come to the "basis" for my measurements. You state that my
measurements appear to be on the basis of image impedances. According
to my editions of both Terman and Everitt, 'image' impedances mean
that when the generator is connected to the input terminals of the
network the impedances looking in both directions at the output
terminals of a network are equal. I understand that this can be true
if the impedances are purely resistive, but I can't see how this could
be true when the impedances are complex, having reactive components.
If the impedances in both direction contain equal reactances (not
opposite), then delivery of maximum available power cannot be
delivered. For the maximum power to be delivered the reactances
looking in opposite directions MUST also be OPPOSITE, describing a
conjugate relationship, not an image relationship.

Unfortunately, my editions of Terman must be different from yours,
because I find no mention of plate resistance (Rp) or Rs. Rp is a
factor in determining the value of RL that appears at the input of a
pi-network in an RF power amp, but has no relevancy downstream of the
network input, and certainly has no relevance to the formation of a
conjugate match at the output of the network.

So Richard, let me get this straight--are you agreeing with my
position or disagreeing?

Kabuki?

Walt