Hi Walter,
I am sorry for carelessly screwing up on my lossless resistance
postings. The arithmetic wasn`t the center of my attention. I should
have been more careful. I`ve apologized to Steve Nisko.

Starving the load for power during a percentage of the cycle limits
power as surely as limiting current all of the time.

Time limitation can be nearly lossless. Resistor limitation is lossy and
reduces efficiency.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hi Walt,

I was the one who called this paper "crap", and I will stick to that
characterization. (The wording is a bit strong, and I apologize for that.)

I have no argument with the notion of maximum power transfer or
non-dissipative resistance. My comment was based on the extensive use of
a goofy analogy to steam turbines. This sort of extended mechanical
analogy is pointless and unprofessional.

Unless we are attempting to retrain displaced marine propulsion
engineers, why should anyone assume that the reader will be more
knowledgeable about steam systems than electrical systems? It is likely
that the targeted reader is already more conversant with electrical systems.

This sort of analogy proves nothing. There is no "proof" that
non-dissipative resistance exists. This term is a "definition", not
something that can be proven. If one looks carefully, all of the "proof"
arguments are circular in nature. Indeed, this is the only possibility
when dealing with a definition. Self-consistency is all we can hope to
achieve.

The 29 pages of the subject paper could be reduced to less than 10
without any loss of important content. The other 19 pages are crap.
Majority rules.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Walter Maxwell wrote:
I believe this thread originated with the paper on non-dissipative resistance by
Bob Lay. The original thread was entitled, 'Max power transfer theorem'. It
seems to have gone off track after a few postings.

I posted a msg on the original thread yesterday, 3-4-04, which at present is the
last posting in that thread. Since my posting there is pertinent to this
thread, I'd appreciate it if you'd all take a look at my thread there, rather
than have me repost it here, because it's rather long, but what I believe is an
important contribution to the thread.

TIA,

Walt Maxwell, W2DU

Gene Fuller wrote:
There is no "proof" that non-dissipative resistance exists. This term
is a "definition", not something that can be proven.

Gene, seems to me that the necessity of two "non-equivalent"
definitions of "resistance" in the IEEE dictionary is proof
of something that needs differentiating in the language.

Did trees exist before the word "tree" was invented?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 23:11:00 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
two "non-equivalent"
definitions of "resistance" in the IEEE dictionary is proof
of nothing

Huhhh???

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

There is no "proof" that non-dissipative resistance exists. This term

is a "definition", not something that can be proven.

Gene, seems to me that the necessity of two "non-equivalent"
definitions of "resistance" in the IEEE dictionary is proof
of something that needs differentiating in the language.

Did trees exist before the word "tree" was invented?

Richard Clark wrote:
wrote:
two "non-equivalent"
definitions of "resistance" in the IEEE dictionary is proof

of nothing

On the contrary, it is proof that the IEEE thinks it is
necessary to differentiate between the two definitions.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:53:46 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
On the contrary, it is proof
of nothing

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 21:50:55 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

wrote:
Non-dissipative resistance is not well accepted or understood by many otherwise
well informed engineers, because it has had little or no (or even incorrect)
treatment in EE courses.

On Sat. 06 Mar 2004 Cecil Moore wrote:

Yet the IEEE recognizes those two types of resistances with different definitions.
Definition (A) talks about "dissipation or other permanent loss". Definition (B)
simply says "The real part of impedance." Then a note: "Definitions (A) and (B)
are *NOT* equivalent ..." (emphasis mine)

The resistance in a resistor satisfies definition (A). The characteristic
impedance of a transmission line satisfies definition (B).

What you said above is true, Cecil, but one more statement applies to Definition
(B). Although Definitions (A) and (B) are not equivalent, Definition (B) does
include the real part of the impedance of a dissipative resistor. The only way
to tell which is which is to determine which develops heat.

I still maintain that many otherwise well qualified engineers not aware of
Definition (B), and therefore reject the concept of a resistance that doesn't
dissipate power. And this applies to much more than the Zo of transmission
lines.

And because there still remains many who believe the RF power amplifier absorbs
and dissipates reflected power, I chose to try again to dispel that notion in my
post in the 'max power theorem' thread.

Walt Maxwell, W2DU

Richard Clark wrote:
wrote:
On the contrary, it is proof

of nothing

Richard, how much do you pay for your blinders?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 18:19:20 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Richard, how much do you pay for your blinders?
Trying to sell yours?