On Mar 3, 4:37 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 00:10:21 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK

wrote:
The confusion arises out of Richard's misleading quotation,

blah blah blah blah blah

Hi Ian,

I have restrained the afterburners until 1200 GMT (seeing as you are
undoubtedly in bed) so that you can fully read the entire side thread
and discover the complete botch you've made in an attempt to weakly
persuade the group that a transmitter could never absorb the energy of
a reflected wave.

That was your point for this chain of accusation, wasn't it, or were
the accusations a solitary pleasure? (I hope you opt for the first,
or other explanation.) I don't expect any apologies so that I can
enjoy a dish that is best eaten cold (re-heated actually). ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I'm in a hotel in Jax, FL, unable to use my routine connections to
rraa, so I'm learning my way around in unknown territory here, and
hope to make a post that will appear.

I've been reading this thread with interest, but the discussions
appear to be only academically related. On the other hand, I've made
measurements that prove the sailent points of these academic
discussions. These measurements were made since those reported in
Reflections 2, and will appear in Reflections 3. However, they are
available on my web page at www.w2du.com. Go to 'Preview of Chapters
from Reflections 3' and click on Chapter 19A.

You may want to disregard the first portion of the chapter, which is
an epilog to Bruene's fiction concerning the conjugate match. The
pertinent portion here is that which reports in detail the step-by-
step procedure in measuring the output impedance of a Kenwood TS-830S
transceiver feeding a reactive-impedance load.

With a careful review of these steps I'm sure you'll find empirical
proof of the academics appearing in the previous posts.

Walt, W2DU