On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 02:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Wimpie
wrote:

There are many ways to say what the source is NOT, and that will never
inform us about the source. *I see many draw deuces to this question
and try to convince everyone that the card is a pair of winning aces.

Probably you consumed something wrong here.

Hi Wimpie,

Hmmm, an ad hominem usually reserved for Art, but I will let it pass
as your perceiving it as a response in kind. Fair enough.

Now make some mismatch (for example VSWR=2 at different phase) and
read the forward power. Did it change? If so, the output impedance is
no (longer) 50 Ohms.

What IS it now? *If you could measure it once, you should be able to
tell us what it is this time too. *I did this for years to methods set
by the National Bureau of Standards. *You have drawn a deuce, not two
aces.

Some values:
9 +/-1 Ohm (real impedance), reference impedance 16 Ohms, 8 MHz
amplifier (ISM).

Taking my statement and your response at face value, you are
describing how a source that formerly exhibited 50 Ohms was drawn down
to 9 +/-1 Ohm (real impedance). What "real impedance" is? is not
something that I will dwell on. Instead, I will ask how this shift
was induced. Or perhaps you are using a 16 Ohm system. If so, this
lacks too many details for consideration. When I had Walt's 300+ line
hypothesis, I also had access to his service manual for his equipment,
the final tube specification, and his measurement data. In short, I
am impressed only by data, not results.

Given the "some values" that you offer continues in disjointed
discussion as a sort of short-hand description for a project known
only to you, then these distractions draw this further away from a
conclusion. I also see your directions to wander the threads for
vague side bars of discussion. Supposedly, this is instruction for me
to draw together and connect the important details of your point for
you. No, thank you. Too many in this group contribute teasing
details in their coy writing and none of them have the power to
intrigue me with that.

Your "some values" looks vaguely interesting, but I would suggest you
put effort into describing your complete scenario with as much care as
Walt's 300+ line posting that laid bare his complete hypothesis. I
offered you a specifically new thread that I originated solely for one
issue where I see no discussion from you - quid pro quo?

And returning to the matter at hand - Up or Down:

"Does Walt's data support the evidence of a Conjugate Match?"

I cannot see pursuing your inquiry with your own example if you cannot
offer a fixed answer here. That would put me in a position of
embarking on a ponderous journey where, simultaneously, you and Walt
both DID AND DID NOT demonstrate your claims. Paradox is suitable
only for Operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC