On Jun 11, 7:19*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:28*pm, K1TTT wrote:

and that is part of the problem in here... 'you call it'. *what is the
definition of 'virtual impedance' in the ieee dictionary?

"The IEEE Dictionary" has no such definition. Those are my words
adopted from "Reflections", by Walter Maxwell, and designed to
differentiate between the (A) and (B) definitions of "impedance" in
"The IEEE Dictionary". Calling the V/I (B) definition of impedance,
"virtual", is much more descriptive than calling it "the (B)
definition".

Walt is arguing that the impedance of an RF source is "non-
dissipative". Ratios of V/I are non-dissipative if they exist devoid
of an impedor. Walt adopted the word "virtual" from the optics
"virtual image". It is an image that is not really there in reality. A
virtual impedance would therefore be the image of an impedor that is
not really there.

what is an 'impedor' in this context? that is a relatively rarely
used term in circuit and wave analysis, but is generically defined as
anything that has an impedance. that doesn't seem to fit your
definition though if you can qualify an impedance as non-dissipative
if they don't have one.


I'm not hung up on the word "virtual". What adjective would you use to
differentiate between a dissipative impedor and a V/I non-dissipative
impedance? I am not trying to be difficult - just trying to
communicate. I'm willing to adopt any convention that you suggest for
the duration of this discussion.

the ieee dictionary qualifiers of dissipative and non-dissipative seem
adequate to me. no need to make up any other terms or qualifiers.