On May 29, 12:26*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT), walt wrote:
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.

Hi Walt,

Thank you for the restrained answer. *Yes, we do not agree here.

To the matter of the conjugate basis. *Terman quite distinctly gives
us a real R that remains after the cancellation of reactances. *As a
hallmark of first principles, it is very clear and concise. *The
source R must match the load R for the source to deliver the maximum
available power. *By the same hallmark, this too is very explicit.
Terman calls this R (the remnant of conjugation) in the source: "the
resistance component of the generator impedance."

For you and others to say what the source is "not," that is not a
solution for what the source "is." *This is what I speak of when you
ask if your critics agree or disagree. *You stand with your critics
against the testimony of your data that stands with Terman.

The plate resistance can be described physically to suit any objection
that I have so far heard from the community. *It suits very few who
embrace thought experiments that have never warmed a bench nor
flickered a measurement instrument. *The collapse of rhetoric has
exposed the vacuum of counter argument.

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

Walt, your methods are first methods. *Your care for propriety exceeds
all bold statements that carelessly condemn you. *Your achievements
give you the status of not having to endure taunts and endless
bickering. *Your steadfast self examination and willingness to sit at
the bench is the rock of faith in what Hams aspire for in engineering.
As for your humanity, I find you a proud father and loving husband. *I
think of you in no other terms, even when my prose is dense or obtuse,
and my engineering demands are harsh and pointed.

If my allusions to Kabuki are obscure, it is through my upbringing
living in Japan as a tyke. *If I might balance that obscure reference
for one that is more to my tone here, I call you Sensei - a master of
learning and teaching.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

I sincerely appreciate your kind words concerning my humanity, and I'm
proud to have you call me Sensei. I have always somehow doubted your
feelings for me as a person, but your words above have relieved that
feeling, Thank you.

As for our disagreement on image matching, I remember reading many
years ago in books concerning networks involving telephone circuits
that dealt only with resistive terminations. Those readings did
specify that with image resistances the resistances were the same in
both directions. Nothing was said in those books concerning reactance
in the circuitry. Apparently we have different editions of Terman.
Mine doesn't discuss R as the remnant of conjugation, so if only R is
considered in the image impedance I can concur with you on this issue.

I also want to be clear on my position concerning plate resistance Rp
as the source resistance of the RF power amplifier. My position is
that it is not. I do understand that Rp is a factor in determining the
value of RL that appears at the input of the tank circuit, but not the
source of power delivered at the output of the tank circuit. Rp is a
non-dissipative resistance, not a resisTOR with physical
characteristics. I consider the voltage-current ratio R appearing at
the output of the tank circuit to be the source resistance of the RF
power amplifier. If you do not agree with this position then I guess
we'll just have to agree to disagree, unless you can find some way to
change my mind.

I thank you again, Richard, for your kind words.

Walt