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