On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:25:10 -0000, "Jeff" wrote:

I am sorry, but I disagree

Hi Jeff,

Your appologies aside, it is the convention you are disagreeing with.
The injection of such terminology as
'transmitted' power
is not part of conventional usage in this discussion. The trap here
of inventing terms is that your term would not account for Ohmic loss
as either forward or reverse power in the balance sheet (and this loss
could well be the source of mismatch); and yet this loss would have a
definite impact on what is "transmitted."

A simple instance proves this. Add a 14 Ohm resistor in series at the
feed to a perfect quarterwave radiator. The reverse reading would be
nada, the forward reading would NOT be "transmitted" power. Further,
the conventional usage of terms seen in this thread would still be
accurate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

" Your appologies aside, it is the convention you are disagreeing with.

I think that most engineers would disagree, what you are describing is the
power delivered into the load, both forward and reverse power exist both by
convention and as a real entity.

The injection of such terminology as
'transmitted' power
is not part of conventional usage in this discussion.

Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part, I sould have said 'power
transmitted to the load'; I was not implying radiated power.

73
Jeff

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:10:42 -0000, "Jeff" wrote:

what you are describing is the
power delivered into the load,

Hi Jeff,

Perhaps you should re-read your original complaint.

Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part

So it would seem. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jeff wrote:
Perhaps that is sloopy wording on my part, I sould have said 'power
transmitted to the load'; I was not implying radiated power.

Indeed, "transmitted power" could simply mean power
from the transmitter, i.e. "source power".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com