On May 28, 9:05*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:43:42 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:
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.

Hi Walt,

Your confusion is well founded. *:-)

Kabuki - Japanese theatre with very elaborate costumes and highly
mannered acting. *It is presented in day long plays that many in the
audience feel perfectly at ease with watching, talking to a neighbor,
eating a meal during the performance or taking a break and coming back
to after an hour or so.

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?

Both. *However, as to why? *They themselves are notably absent from
this discussion. *I mark this as a lack of commitment at the bench to
obtain contrary evidence. *Perhaps it is casual indifference carefully
woven into passionate and emphatic negations. *Such bipolar swings is
what I term as truly Kabuki.

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.
On Thu, 27 May 2010 13:15:49 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:

Rp is NOT the source resistance.

Note your emphasis in the original. *It conforms to half the other
writers half the time (who can tell with all their mannered
elaboration?).

If you can allow that Rp is real resistance, all fine and well. *If it
takes more than three sentences to state it is not, then that is truly
Kabuki. *Three sentences may not completely give you enough freedom of
expression, but if I see a fire hose response - that is just too much
material to justify parsing for a clear answer.

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.

Well, you have the material at hand. *Terman offers succinct meaning.
A position is usually in one place. *That place is as Terman and NBS
writer Stephen Adam (strictly) terms it as "basis." *And I asked what
basis you use. *Please consult the strict usages of the literal word
basis (and not the informal understanding of "how") to avoid mixing
them. *Your pleas are often couched with conjugate basis and you
attempt to prove them with image-Z basis. *They should not be
intermingled.

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,

You do not have "Electronic and Radio Engineering?"

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

I take no position beyond your data clearly exhibiting the nature of
what Terman describes in pages I have referenced. *My professional
experience has been invested with measuring real resistance to NBS
precision and accuracy - this includes plate and collector resistances
(albeit at vastly less resolution than standard resistors and such). *

Energy creates heat in real resistors. *The combination of phases and
energies in a resistance still gives rise to heat, if by different
degrees that follow phase relationships of all perceived sources. Heat
can increase through soaking (a steady elevated current) or through
breakdown (the quick flash of an intense voltage arc). *These two are
very common (even if only on rare occasions) experiences of EVERY
correspodent with their own equipment. *It is exceptional to deny
this. *We have exceptional threads.

Your data does not contradict any of my points - the question is: does
your position contradict Terman's discussion and my experience? *I
have trouble with your mixed basis discussion that clouds my ability
to resolve where you stand. *Other writers seem to go both ways
without any data of their own measurements to inform me about their
judgment having authority. *Yours is the only data (aside from my own
offered earlier in separate discussion) on the table - and it suits me
fine.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm still trying to assimilate all the info you presented in
you post above. So please allow me to skate around a bit.

First, concerning plate resistance, Rp. This may be where we don't
understand each other. My position on Rp is that it is a non-
dissipative resistance, and can be measured by noting the change in Ip
with a change in ep with grid voltage held constant. The result of the
effect of Rp is thus one of inverse feedback when the Ip is varying
with respect to a change in grid voltage that causes a change in Ip
that is inversely related to the change in ep appearing across the
plate load resistance with the plate source voltage held constant. Rp
thus is not relevant to the source resistance of an RF power amplifier
other than its effect on RL looking upstream of the input to the pi-
network. When I speak of the source resistance (or impedance) of the
RF power amp I'm referring to the resistance (or impedance) appearing
at the output terminals of the network, which has nothing to do with
Rp. If you're considering Rp as the source resistance that's probably
the reason for our disagreement, and if you do consider Rp as the
source resistance I believe you're wrong.

And concerning the basis for the impedance matching, I don't consider
that I'm comingling image impedance with conjugate impedance. I simply
can't construe Terman's definition of 'image' impedance as relating to
the procedure I used in measuring the source impedance appearing at
the output of the network. This is because Terman says the image
impedance at the output terminals of the network is the same looking
in both directions. This condition cannot occur when the reactance
component in the load is the opposite to that looking rearward into
the network, a condition required to satisfy the Maximum Power
Transfer Theorem with respect to delivering all the available power.

However, I will say this, I appreciate your statement that my data
suits you fine.

Walt