Keith Dysart wrote:
Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail.

I believe that is a false statement. Please
prove your assertion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Dec 7, 4:10 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail.

I believe that is a false statement. Please
prove your assertion.

The best example was when you refused to discuss
the reflections at the output of an amplifier with a
well defined output impedance because a typical
amateur transmitter does not have a well defined
output impedance.

The discussion was going to demolish the idea of
complete re-reflection at the output of a transmitter
but stalled because you refused to use the simple
case to examine the issue. Using the more
complicated scenario of a real transmitter it was
much easier to obfuscate with the result that the
discussion went nowhere.

Which was sad because there was much
opportunity for learning there.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
The best example was when you refused to discuss
the reflections at the output of an amplifier with a
well defined output impedance because a typical
amateur transmitter does not have a well defined
output impedance.

I tend to avoid discussions about amplifiers because
I know very little about amplifiers, real or imagined.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Dec 8, 12:52 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The best example was when you refused to discuss
the reflections at the output of an amplifier with a
well defined output impedance because a typical
amateur transmitter does not have a well defined
output impedance.

I tend to avoid discussions about amplifiers because
I know very little about amplifiers, real or imagined.

Serious revisionism here.

You should count your posts on (re)reflections at the
output terminals of amplifiers.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
You should count your posts on (re)reflections at the
output terminals of amplifiers.

Conceptually, I know what has to happen based on the
principle of conservation of energy, i.e. all energy
is conserved. If the reflected wave energy is not
entering the source, it is being reflected at the
source. That is all I was saying during those posts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Dec 8, 9:22 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You should count your posts on (re)reflections at the
output terminals of amplifiers.

Conceptually, I know what has to happen based on the
principle of conservation of energy, i.e. all energy
is conserved. If the reflected wave energy is not
entering the source, it is being reflected at the
source. That is all I was saying during those posts.

Actually, you said much more than that, some of
which was quite wrong. And you are right, some
of the errors would be entirely consistent with not
understanding amplifiers. Especially the
superposition ones.
But then why not take the opportunity to learn?
Instead of arguing from a point which you now
claim was ignorance.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
But then why not take the opportunity to learn?
Instead of arguing from a point which you now
claim was ignorance.

Sorry, I didn't do that. My only point was that
one could indeed track the energy in the amplifier
if one understand where the destructive interference
is vs where the constructive interference is. Every-
thing I said is based on the conservation of energy,
not on the design of the amplifier.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com