Hi Walt,

I am quite surprised and disappointed that you commented on my review of
Steve Best's QEX articles in the manner quoted he

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:17 Walter Maxwell wrote:

And it also totally supports your argument with Gene, who apparently
doesn't get it either, because I heard him claim that Steve's article is one of
the most illuminating and definitive he's read. Unfortunately, Steve's QEX
article is total BS.

Walt, kW2DU

************************************************** *

Here is an exact quote from my email to you dated January 31, 2003.

Hi Walt,

I'm back.

I have re-read the Best QEX article, I have read your rebuttal
carefully, and I have re-read parts of Reflections II.

I have to say that I believe the QEX article in question is fair and
correct. I cannot find a single flaw in it.

I have documented my response by adding comments to the rebuttal draft
you sent me the other day. My comments are in red.

In summary, I think the QEX article is completely correct in items 1, 2,
and 3. I am less comfortable about making any sort of definitive
statement on item 4.

I have been aware of the controversy for some time, and I am somewhat
dumbfounded by the entire matter.

I tacitly believed that all of this stuff had been fully defined,
understood, and non-controversial for many decades. Certainly there is
no new science in classical transmission line theory in 2003.

To the best of my understanding this entire matter has somewhat the
character of a tempest in a teapot. I have not found the slightest
evidence that your model and Steve Best's model disagree in any
measurable way. Clearly the insides of the models are different, but the
visible, measurable parts are not.

Is there a single case in which Best's model gives the wrong answer by
any measurement technique?

Is there a single case in which your model gives the wrong answer by any
measurement technique?

From a visualization and conceptualization point the models are quite
different. You note that many engineers appreciate your model as it
provides them a good understanding of the reflection behavior. To be
brutally honest, I prefer the approach taken by Best. I like the
equations to balance explicitly, and I am less comfortable with relying
on concepts like virtual opens and shorts.

Again, I do not see any physically measurable difference in the output
from the models. The rest is philosophy.

snip of irrelevant pleasantries

************************************************** *

Soooo, Walt, what did I write that elicited your unkind comment?


73,
Gene
W4SZ