Keith Dysart wrote:
So when a poster presents a problem in a context other "typical
ham transmitters", why do you dispute the answers.

Uhhhhhh Keith, because you presented the problem to me,
not someone else. You asked me what was wrong with your
examples. I obliged you. If you don't want me to answer,
don't ask me to respond.

Perhaps, in your dissertations on optics, it would be valuable
to state that they apply only in the context of "typical ham
transmitters". This might make it clear to the reader that
your suggestions are not generally applicable and could reduce
the wasted bits.

Perhaps, you should learn to recognize the common misleading
logical diversions, including your reductio ad absurdum assertion
above, and avoid them in the future.

No indeed, the source impedance was a constant and resistive
in all my examples.

Did you bench test it or just dream it up and wave your hands?
Maybe your ten cent resistor can resolve the war in Iraq - in
your mind.

So I take it that you no longer agree with the analysis presented
in Reflections 19 and 19a. I am pretty sure that you have stated
agreement in the past.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never stated
agreement or disagreement. It is just one possibility out
of many that have been presented over the years. The fact
that there are so many theories is proof that it has not
been settled. Why don't you whip out an article that settles
everything and see what QEX thinks about it?

It would be valuable if you were to expand on the reasons for your
change of thought.

Since I haven't changed my thought, that would be difficult.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com