Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You missed the point. A terminating capacitor is a two
terminal network. The point where two pieces of feedline
are connected is a four-terminal network. A two-terminal
network is different from a four-terminal network.

This appears to be an unusual definition.

Not unusual at all, Gene. The two input terminals to the
black box are on one side. The two output terminals from
the black box are on the other side. The impedance
discontinuity is inside the box. The black box is extremely
small.

Give me the four s-parameters, s11, s12, s21, and s22
and I can tell you virtually everything about what is
inside the black box without even applying a signal.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You missed the point. A terminating capacitor is a two
terminal network. The point where two pieces of feedline
are connected is a four-terminal network. A two-terminal
network is different from a four-terminal network.

This appears to be an unusual definition.

Not unusual at all, Gene. The two input terminals to the
black box are on one side. The two output terminals from
the black box are on the other side. The impedance
discontinuity is inside the box. The black box is extremely
small.

Give me the four s-parameters, s11, s12, s21, and s22
and I can tell you virtually everything about what is
inside the black box without even applying a signal.


BZZZT! Wrong answer.

Nobody ever said anything about the "other side" of the black box.
Everything has been referenced to "the point where two pieces of
feedline are connected."

Nobody is trying to suggest that what is inside one black box is
identical to what is inside another black box. The only thing known is
that the *two* accessible terminals to each of the black boxes show the
same specific impedance at the given frequency. Nothing else. Yet by
your models and math the black boxes don't behave the same in your test
circuit.

You still have not addressed the original question posed by Keith.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

I see that the smudge pots have been lit and the hand waving,
misdirection, and desperate attempts at changing the subject begins. As
they have so many times before. What a waste of all that alleged IQ.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
I see that the smudge pots have been lit and the hand waving, misdirection,
and desperate attempts at changing the subject begins. As they have so many
times before. What a waste of all that alleged IQ.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I do believe that someone may have inadvertently added 100 to that IQ.
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under. He finally
picked up on it this morning and decided to stop wasting his time. Now if he
would only make that a promise!

W4ZCB

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:33:34 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:

I do believe that someone may have inadvertently added 100 to that IQ.
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under. He finally
picked up on it this morning and decided to stop wasting his time. Now if he
would only make that a promise!

Harold!

I resemble that earmark!

Add 100 indeed, I thought it was 200.

As for your last sentence. The "he" is rather unspecific as two
correspondents made a promise (perhaps not so well timed as to fit
your observation here). However, I too will sit on the edge of my
seat in wonderment to that outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

As for your last sentence. The "he" is rather unspecific as two
correspondents made a promise (perhaps not so well timed as to fit
your observation here). However, I too will sit on the edge of my
seat in wonderment to that outcome.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

W4ZCB

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:02:16 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote:

Didn't read your last (promise) until after I sent that. You know who I
meant. BTW, did you just by any chance ever work for me at the PME Lab in
Hawaii ?

Hi Howard,

Hmmm, how to answer that. Did that fellow remind you of me?

Well, to cut to the chase, I was SUBLANT, USS Holland AS-32, Nuclear
Navy; and as far as I know, the closest point of approach would have
been Guam (aside from our time in the yards at Bremerton, across the
water from where I live now).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Harold E. Johnson wrote:
I do believe that someone may have inadvertently added 100 to that IQ.
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under. He finally
picked up on it this morning and decided to stop wasting his time. Now if he
would only make that a promise!

I'm a simple trusting person who tries to see the good
in everyone, even Richard C. Please pick a technical
subject upon which we disagree and let's discuss it
like technical gentlemen.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Harold E. Johnson wrote:
Everyone on here with the exception of the gifted one has known for the last
3 days that Richard has been just pulling his bobber under.

So now I get blasted for being naive, not for the
technical stuff I am presenting? Why am I not surprised?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I see that the smudge pots have been lit and the hand waving,
misdirection, and desperate attempts at changing the subject begins. As
they have so many times before. What a waste of all that alleged IQ.

Do you think that waving your hands and posting gobblegook
like the above is any better? Please, please, make a technical
statement with which you know I disagree and let's discuss
it like mature individuals.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com