RICHARD:



I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.



However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.



Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.



Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.



Richard says:



Hi All,

This is simply a quick overview from the separate threads that will
follow, each thread devoted to only one Step in the progression of
measurements Steps offered by Walt Maxwell in his upcoming release of
"Reflections III," Chapter 19A in particular.

I have been working off of three revisions of this work, and some
quotes may not be accurate. I will leave reconciliation of those to
others as this has been a long and exhaustive examination, and I don't
perceive any substantive issues shifted along the way. Not all steps
will be critiqued as not all contain response beyond my noting they
contained simple reports of fact that did not merit challenging. A
full article length version containing all discussion of this will be
available.

The discussion threads follow immediately.



Walt says:

The numbered steps are quotes from Chapter 19A



Step 1.
Using a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver as the RF source, the tuning and
loading of the pi-network are adjusted to deliver all the available
power into a 50 + j0-ohm load with the grid drive adjusted to deliver
the maximum of 100 watts at 4 MHz, thus establishing the area of the
RF power window at the input of the pi-network, resistance RLP at the
plate, and the slope of the load line. The output source resistance of
the amplifier in this condition will later be shown to be 50 ohms. In
this condition the DC plate voltage is 800 v and plate current is 260
ma. DC input power is therefore 800 x 0.26 a = 208 w. Readings on
the Bird 43 wattmeter indicate 100 watts forward and zero watts
reflected. (100 watts is the maximum RF output power available at this
drive level.) From here on the grid drive is left undisturbed, and the
pi-network controls are left undisturbed until Step 10.



Richard says:
There are several points in response he
1.The load specification ( 50 + j0-ohm) is for full output power, not
some portion of it. This is a minor point.



Walt says: This is NOT a minor point. The output power at 100 watts was
specified as the reference power, not the full output power the xmtr could
produce.



2.Maximum power from a TS-830S can be as high as 120W, could be lower
depending on finals' service life. This is a minor point.



Walt says: This is also NOT a minor point. The TS-830S used for the measurements
is capable of producing more than 130 watts, but 100 watts was used to assure
stability that could be compromised if running the xmtr at its full output.



3.Rated typical Plate Current for the 6146B is 220mA. Running more at
higher voltage (typical is 750V) to obtain less power sounds like the
amp is being strained to produce 100W.



Walt says: Rated plate current is irrelevant here. The plate voltage in this
xmtr is inherently 800v when the plate current is 260 ma. Running more than 750v
to obtain less power is an absurd and unwarranted statement. The amp was NOT
being strained to produce 100 w, because its full output exceeds 130 w.



4."Available Power" is 208W. Efficiency and other considerations
certainly lower this, but it would appear that efficiency has been
red-lined at 48% by this step's assertions. The red-line at 48%
efficiency may reveal the aforementioned strain.



Walt says: Available power is NOT 208w. 208w is the DC input power. The true
available power was 100w because the grid drive was set to allow only 100w to be
delivered with loading adjusted to deliver all the available power at that drive
level. This condition is clearly stated in Step 1.



Step 2.
The amplifier is now powered down and the load resistance RL is
measured across the input terminals of the resonant pi-network tank
circuit (from plate to ground) with an HP-4815 Vector Impedance Meter.
The resistance is found to be approximately 1400 ohms. Because the
amplifier was adjusted to deliver the maximum available power of 100
watts prior to the resistance measurement, resistance RLP looking into
the plate (upstream from the network terminals) is also approximately
1400 ohms. Accordingly, a non-reactive 1400-ohm resistor is now
connected across the input terminals of the pi-network tank circuit
and source resistance ROS is measured looking rearward into the output
terminals of the network. Resistance ROS was found to be 50 ohms.



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.This is actually two steps: one measurement made from the plate
looking towards the load; one measurement made from the output jack
looking towards plate.
2.The measurement at the plate without a powered tube unloads the Q of
the plate tuning. Does this unloaded Q present a false reading of the
transformed load resistance?



Walt says: No, it does not.


Richard continues:
3.The load line with 800 v / 0.26 a / 2 = 1539 Ohms.

Walt says: The above statement is false. The load line is not determined by the
DC components-it is determined by the AC components using the Chaffee analysis
procedure.



Richard continues:

4."Maximum Available Power" has not been established, only arrived at
by inference. It could be more, it could be less. Being less is
unlikely given the subsequent demonstrated power delivered to the load
being 100W; but it is suspect that exactly 100W is all that could be
obtained. The point, however, is that such attention to "Available
Power" is an unnecessary elaboration to the point of taking these
steps.



Walt says: Maximum available power was NOT arrived at by inference. It WAS
established in Step 1 by setting the grid drive so that maximum available power
with that setting was 100w. Richard's statement that attention to available
power is an unnecessary elaboration is totally false, because a constant
available power is required as a reference for all the measurements. It is
clearly stated in one of my earlier statements that the xmtr was capable of
delivering more than 130w.



Richard continues:

5.The measurement at the output towards the plate similarly unloads
the plate tuning Q when the 50 Ohms is removed to make the
measurement. Does this unloaded Q present a false reading of the
transformed plate resistance?



Walt says: No, it does not. This method is standard procedure in making initial
adjustments of the tank circuit of newly manufactured xmtrs prior to applying
the plate voltage.


Richard continues:
6.The measurements made in both directions confirm the capacity of an
unloaded circuit to perform the transformations in a symmetric fashion
(a good test), but you have not tested if the issue of loaded Q is a
factor or not. If you were to replace the 1400 Ohm resistor at the
plate tuning input (at the plate connection) with a 1000 Ohm resistor,
would the 50 Ohms follow that shift? By how much?

Walt says: Yes it would. If this pi-network is adjusted such that a 1400-ohm
resistor at the plate connection would yield 50 ohms at the output of the
network a 1000-ohm resistor replacing the 1400-ohm, the resistance appearing at
the output would be 35.71 ohms


Step 7.
Due to the 2.88:1 mismatch at the load, neglecting network losses and
the small change in plate current resulting from the mismatch,
approximately the same mismatch appears between RLP and ZL at the
input of the pi-network. Consequently, the change in load impedance
changed the network input resistance RL from 1400 ohms to complex ZL ~
800 - j1000 ohms, measured with the Vector Impedance Meter using the
method described in Step 2. To verify the impedance measurement of ZL
the phase delay of the network was measured using an HP-8405 Vector
Voltmeter and found to be 127°. Using this value of phase delay the
input impedance ZL was calculated using two different methods; one
yielding 792 - j1003 ohms, the other yielding 794.6 - j961.3 ohms,
thus verifying the accuracy of the measurement. However, because grid
voltage EC, grid drive Eg, and plate voltage EB are left unchanged,
resistance RLP at the plate has remained at approximately 1400 ohms,
leaving a mismatch between RLP and ZL at the input of the pi-network.
As stated above, this value of ZL yields the substantially the same
mismatch to plate resistance RLP as that between the output impedance
of the pi-network and the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load, i.e., 2.88:1. This
mismatch at the network input results in less power delivered into the
network, and thus to the load, a decrease in the area of the RF window
at the network input, and a change in the slope of the loadline. (It
must be remembered that the input and output mismatches contribute
only to mismatch loss, which does not result in power delivered and
then lost somewhere in dissipation. As we will see in Step 8, the
mismatch at the input of the pi-network results only in a reduced
delivery of source power proportional to the degree of mismatch.)



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.We enter into a key remark in the first sentence: neglecting
network losses and the small change in plate current resulting from
the mismatch. By this statement the subordinate thesis being offered:
output source resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative
is wholly invalidated.



Walt says: The last sentence above is totally false. The increase in plate
current due to the mismatch causing the pi-network to be detuned does cause the
increase in plate dissipation, but plate dissipation occurs only in the
cathode-to-plate resistance, which is totally irrelevant to the output source
resistance, which IS non-dissipative.



Richard says:

The observation that the plate current changes
(and presumably plate voltage has not, unconfirmed in the protocol)



Walt says: Not so. While the plate current increased to 290 ma. The voltage
decreased to 760v, clearly stated in Step 9.



Richard continues:
through the agency of mismatch must necessarily admit that the plate
resistance has also changed if only because it has been explicitly
admitted to through the dismissed current change.
2.To whatever degree (as dictated by the phase of the mismatch), plate
dissipation must also change. This is the common experience of
literally thousands of Amateur radio operators and has been commented
upon and reported for generations when through the unfortunate aspect
of phase, it becomes a destructive dissipation.



Walt says: Of course the plate dissipation changed with the increase in plate
current caused by the detuning of the network. But as said before, this plate
dissipation is irrelevant to the output source resistance.



Richard continues:



Such reports often
attain dramatic legendary status, if only for the afflicted amplifier
owner (who may enjoy comedic celebrity among his peers).
3.Moving on to subsequent sentences, the reported values of complex
load resistance (792 - j1003 Ohms) seen from the plate looking through
tuning towards the new, mismatched load confirms that the plate
resistance must be impacted. If, as reported, the plate resistance
remains at 1400 Ohms, then there is a mismatch which is admitted to in
the text of the original. The final argument is based upon mismatch
loss, which from the perspective of the load, is that amount of power
not seen, but not lost by dissipation. That much is true from the
perspective of the load. The same would be true if we replaced the
plate tuning with a large resistor which would also reduce power to
the load, so such an appeal has nothing to do with the argument of the
subordinate thesis: output source resistance of the RF power amplifier
is non-dissipative. The nature of this particular plate mismatch
affirms the current indication, and rejects the conclusion of
non-dissipation (which is characteristically, and artificially
constrained to being exothermic when through phasing it could as
easily be endothermic).



Walt says: Richard is totally off base in attempting to correlate the plate
dissipation with the output source resistance at the output terminals of the
network. They are totally unrelated.



Richard says:



4.A more careful protocol would allow for phase by lengthening the
13.5° length of coax to 103.5° (or more but well less than 180°) and
carefully noting the new plate current. In fact, other lengths should
be used to draw a more rigorous correlation.



Walt says: Richard ignores the fact stated later in my paper that I have already
made measurements with several different lengths of coax that also verify the
measurements reported here to be correct.



Step 8.
Readings on a Bird 43 power meter now indicate 95w forward and 20w
reflected, meaning only 75 watts are now delivered by the source and
absorbed in the mismatched load. The 20w reflected power remains in
the coax, and adds to the 75 watts delivered by the source to
establish the total forward power of 95w.


Richard continues:
Point in response:
The Bird 43 indications only reveal mismatch loss (unstated as 5W if
we are to return to the concept of Available Power, which as a
rhetorical point has been uncharacteristically discarded) which is
only tangentially related to the subordinate thesis: output source
resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative. Step 7 is
sufficient to illustrate the thesis.

Walt says: The above paragraph is totally without merit, and only serves to
confuse the reader.


Step 9.
We now compare the measured power delivered with the calculated power,
using the power transmission coefficient, 1 - ?2. The calculated power
delivered is: 100w × (1 - ?2) = 76.6w, compared to the 75w indicated
by the Bird wattmeter. However, because the new load impedance is less
than the original 50 ohms, and also reactive, the amplifier is now
overloaded and the pi-network is detuned from resonance. Consequently,
the plate current has increased from 260 to 290 ma, plate voltage has
dropped to 760 v, and DC input power has increased from 208 w to 220.4
w.



Richard says:
Points in response:
1.This is a surprising departure from reporting in the progression of
the protocol. We now find current and voltage reports where formerly
they were either dismissed or neglected. However, we will take these
as they are reported here.



Walt says: Voltage and current were NOT dismissed or neglected. They were
presented in Step 9 as the natural progression in explaining the test procedure.



Richard continues:

2.It appears that the calculated power and the reported power agree,
this is not directly expressed, but neither these remarks are not
stated as being in conflict. Given the editorialization that inhabits
the protocol in general, these remarks are remarkably dry and
unconnected.
3.Following, with the editorial comment that the amplifier is now
overloaded, the connotation is necessarily a rejection of the thesis:
output source resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative;
otherwise the condition giving rise to the overload would be of no
particular consequence nor interest.



Walt says: The amplifier was overloaded because the load impedance was less than
that with the reference load of 50 + j0 ohms. Richard still fails to understand
that the dissipation in the cathode-to-plate resistance is totally unrelated to
the output source resistance, because the output source resistance is determined
only by the voltage-current ratio appearing at the output terminals of the
network.



Richard continues:

Rather, the cautionary should
have been the amplifier is not delivering its Maximum Available Power
(once again, having raised this topic early on, it is curiously
missing as a rhetorical observation). The dialectic seems to have
promoted the subordinate thesis while the data in the observations
have destroyed it.



Walt says: The last statement above is totally false.



4.The detuned state is an untested conjecture. Its inclusion adds
nothing without both a rigorous examination and explaining the
speculative correlation as causation.

Walt says: There is no speculation or untested conjecture here. The fact that
the network was detuned by the mismatched load containing reactance is proven by
the fact that retuning the network to resonance was by adjusting it to obtain
the plate-current dip.



Step 10.
With the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load still connected, the pi-network
loading and tuning are now re-adjusted to again deliver all available
power with drive level setting still left undisturbed. The
readjustment of the plate tuning capacitor has increased the
capacitive reactance in the pi-network by -8.77 ohms, canceling the
+8.77 ohms of inductive reactance in the load, returning the system to
resonance. The readjustment of the loading control capacitor has
decreased the output capacitive reactance, thus reducing the output
resistance from 50 to 17.98 ohms. Thus the network readjustments have
decreased the output impedance from 50 +j0 to 17.98 - j 8.77 ohms, the
conjugate of the load impedance, 17.98 + j8.77 ohms. The readjustments
have also returned the network input impedance ZL to 1400 + j0 ohms
(again equal to RLP), have returned the original area of the RF window
at the network input, and have returned the slope of the loadline to
its original value. For verification of the 1400-ohm network input
resistance after the readjustment, ZL was again measured using the
method described in Step 2, and found it to have returned to 1400 + j0
ohms.



Richard continues:
Points in response:
This step is fraught with leaps of faith substituting for sound,
practical evidence.
1.This step consists of several steps. Rhetorically, what is the
meaning of steps, to so much shift stylistically? This is not an
isolated instance, so writing structure needs to be re-examined.
2.All Available Power, (a rhetorical shift from maximum) has not been
established, much less shown. It is not denied that a greater power
can be applied to the new load; but the actual amount of power is not
reported (a reporting shift from earlier protocol).



Walt says: All the available power WAS ESTABLISHED AND SHOWN IN STEP 10,
quoting: "With the 17.98 + j8.77-ohm load still connected, the pi-network
loading and tuning are now re-adjusted to again deliver all available power with
drive level setting still left undisturbed." All available power was initially
set to be 100w determined by the drive level which was left undisturbed.



Richard continues:

3.The declaration of attaining a reactance of -j8.77 Ohms is
unsubstantiated in reported measurements. This gives rise to the
appearance of speculation serving the argument.



Walt says: No speculation, and the -j8.77 ohms is not unsubstantiated, because
that reactance introduced into the network resulted in the network becoming
resonant in that it canceled the +j8.77 ohms appearing in the load. No
additional measurement is required to determine the existence of the -j8.77
ohms.


Richard continues:
4.Likewise, the declaration of lowering the output (terminal) Z to
17.98 Ohms is a remarkably precise value without any measurement
evidenced.


Walt says: All available power is delivered when the load resistance is equal
to the source resistance. The load resistance was 17.98 ohms. Because all
available power was delivered into 17.98 ohms the output resistance is
inherently 17.98 ohms.


Richard continues:
5.The verification measurement, a step of considerable substance, is
rendered here as an footnote, clouding the earlier responses, 2 & 3
above, jarring against the lack of the actual measurements of -j8.77
Ohms and 17.98 Ohms. In a nutshell, the verification is shortchanged
against the completeness of earlier measurements.

Walt says: Richard is really clutching at straws here in his attempt to
discredit my measurements.



Richard continues:

6.The adjustment of the plate load does not reveal a conjugation.

Walt says: With the plate current again dipped at 206ma. now at resonance with
the initially mismatched load, the same plate current obtained at resonance with
the 50-ohm load, proves the match now existing at the network output is a
conjugate match.



Step. 11
Bird 43 power meter readings following the readjustment procedure now
indicate 130w forward and 29.5w reflected, indicating 100.5w
delivered to the mismatched load.


Richard continues:
Points in response:
1. The cost of the variation in usage of the term Step now comes home
to roost. This step is obviously simple reporting. However, it is
reporting out of sequence, which is the purpose of offering Steps so
that this can be avoided.
2. It also reveals the problems of precision offered where impedances
are reported to 2 decimal places (exceeding the accuracy of
equipment). Formerly, Maximum Available Power was explicitly defined
(to one decimal place) as 100W, and now we find 100.5W applied to the
newly matched load. The laws of precise reporting would suggest the
earlier Maximum Available Power should have been specified at 100.0W
(tenths of W precision); or consistent with its earlier 1% precision
that this new reading should be offered as 101W (with appropriate
promotion of the 0.5W).



Walt says: Picky picky picky.



Richard continues:

3. I would point out that the Bird 43 Power Meter's accuracy is 5% of
full scale and that to this point no specification has been offered as
to what actual equipment is being used as there are seven possible
plug-ins available (where only three would be sensibly chosen here).
This gives rise to the author conferring upon the reviewer the power
to choose for him. I will arbitrarily infer from the information
provided that two plug-ins are used: 100W and 250W. The 100W would be
selected for the first power reading offered in Step 1 as this would
give the greatest accuracy to that cardinal point. The 250W element
for the 130W reading in Step 11. I presume that the 100W element
would be used for the reverse power readings, as that would be the
greatest advantage; unless, of course, the 50W element was available
(this is the hazard of incomplete reporting).
4. A 29.5W reading is both an interpolation (there are no half Watt
gradations), and subject to error. The proper reporting would allow
for the interpolation but cite it as 29.5W ±5W (or nearly 17% of
reading).
5. A more substantial ±25W error inhabits the 130W reading due to the
use of the 250W element. The proper reporting would allow for the
interpolation but cite it as 130W ±25W (or nearly 19% of reading).
Given that these are two, separate measurements, we have to render the
delivered power as:
(155W .. 105W) + (-34.5W .. -24.5W)
where the optimistic combination of all inaccuracies offer a spread of
delivered power:
120.5W .. 80.5W
This is a huge variation of ±20W around what had been presumed to
represent the Maximum Available Power of 100W (which, in itself could
only have been reported as 95W .. 105W).
6. For the reader, there is a object lesson to be learned here in
regard to RF power measurement accuracy where none is required (as I
pointed out, the introduction of Maximum Available Power is an
unnecessary elaboration to the subordinate thesis). That is, the
greatest usage of the Bird (or any indicating instrument) would be
found in returning the system to a cardinal reading point on its
scale. This would collapse the nearly 20% error to less than one-tenth
that value.... If it mattered at all (it doesn't).

Walt says: In the above unnecessary discourse Richard is only showing off his
expertise as a metrologist.



Step 13.
It is thus evident that the amplifier has returned to delivering the
original power, 100 watts into the previously mismatched
complex-impedance load, now conjugately matched, the same as when it
was delivering 100 watts into the 50-ohm non-reactive load. But the
reflected power, 30.6 watts, remains in the coax, adding to the 100
watts delivered by the amplifier to establish the 130.6 watts of
forward power, proving that it does not enter the amplifier to
dissipate and heat the network or the tube.


Richard continues:
Points in response:
1. The power accounting is wholly lacking in accuracy implications as
previously noted.



Walt says: Totally false. The only inaccuracies are in the measurement errors
inherent in the measurement equipment that come with the territory. The large
deviations in the precisions Richard alludes to are unrealistic.


Richard continues:
2. That 30.6W remains in the coax has been through the intervention
of the amplifier operator's tuning.


Walt says: Totally false. The 30.6w remains in the coax because the reflected
power was totally re-reflected because the non-dissipative source resistance
reflected it. If the source resistance had been dissipative the reflected power
would have been only 25w, not 30.6 watts, and the 25w would have been absorbed
in the source, which it was not.



Richard continues:

The reflection of power from the
original mismatch clearly impacted the dissipation of the finals
without such intervention. Intervention was a necessity of preventing
the untoward, catastrophic failure of the amplifier (in a general
sense for all possible load reflection angles).
3. The 30.6W remaining in the coax is a function of tuning that cast
the issues of dissipation out of the tube, and moved the line of
dissipation towards the load (actually, into the tuning elements of
the plate and the line itself). This is the whole raison d'etre of
tuning the grid/plate or matching the load.



Walt says: Although the reflected power caused the mismatch appearing at the
input of the 13° line, the reflection of power itself did not affect the
dissipation of the amp, because the reflected power never entered the network.
It was simply the reactance in the load that detuned the network that increased
the dissipation, as would be expected when the network is detuned from
resonance.



I hope my responses have sufficiently explained why Richard's criticism is so
outrageously incorrect. I have no clue as to his motivation for discrediting my
writing to this extent, because it is totally unwarranted.



Walt, W2DU

On Jun 22, 11:33 am, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
RICHARD:

I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.

However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.

Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.

Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.

Richard says:

Hi All,

This is simply a quick overview from the separate threads that will
follow, each thread devoted to only one Step in the progression of
measurements Steps offered by Walt Maxwell in his upcoming release of
"Reflections III," Chapter 19A in particular.

I have been working off of three revisions of this work, and some
quotes may not be accurate. I will leave reconciliation of those to
others as this has been a long and exhaustive examination, and I don't
perceive any substantive issues shifted along the way. Not all steps
will be critiqued as not all contain response beyond my noting they
contained simple reports of fact that did not merit challenging. A
full article length version containing all discussion of this will be
available.

The discussion threads follow immediately.

Walt says:

The numbered steps are quotes from Chapter 19A

Step 1.
Using a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver as the RF source, the tuning and
loading of the pi-network are adjusted to deliver all the available
power into a 50 + j0-ohm load with the grid drive adjusted to deliver
the maximum of 100 watts at 4 MHz, thus establishing the area of the
RF power window at the input of the pi-network, resistance RLP at the
plate, and the slope of the load line. The output source resistance of
the amplifier in this condition will later be shown to be 50 ohms. In
this condition the DC plate voltage is 800 v and plate current is 260
ma. DC input power is therefore 800 x 0.26 a = 208 w. Readings on
the Bird 43 wattmeter indicate 100 watts forward and zero watts
reflected. (100 watts is the maximum RF output power available at this
drive level.) From here on the grid drive is left undisturbed, and the
pi-network controls are left undisturbed until Step 10.

Richard says:
There are several points in response he
1.The load specification ( 50 + j0-ohm) is for full output power, not
some portion of it. This is a minor point.

Walt says: This is NOT a minor point. The output power at 100 watts was
specified as the reference power, not the full output power the xmtr could
produce.

2.Maximum power from a TS-830S can be as high as 120W, could be lower
depending on finals' service life. This is a minor point.

Walt says: This is also NOT a minor point. The TS-830S used for the measurements
is capable of producing more than 130 watts, but 100 watts was used to assure
stability that could be compromised if running the xmtr at its full output.

Could all of you experts who can count the angels on the head of a pin but
obviously cannot read English, please take this to a relevant newsgroup?
This is not an antenna issue, and doesn't belong anywhere in the same zip
code with rec.radio.amateur. ANTENNA.

If your egos just absolutely demand publication, perhaps a new newsgroup
with the name "dummy load" would suffice. and any of you could start it.
Personally, I'll be very careful to avoid it.

W4ZCB

Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
1 - Who the **** are you?
2 - What the **** is chapter 19A?
3 - Why the **** have you wasted so much
space on this antenna newsgroup with your
post asking for reviews and then getting
your panties wadded when someone "denigrates"
your stupid ass paper?

**** you and your ****ing chapters.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:33:41 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

I've known you for a long time to be tough but fair. I've envied your depth of
knowledge in many areas of expertise. Which is why I entrusted you and others on
this thread with my Chapter 19A for an honest peer review. I expected to receive
a fair review from you that would fare well in proving my paper correct for
those who don't yet understand, or don't believe the principles involved.



However, instead of receiving a fair critique of my paper you trashed it with an
axe. Every criticism you made was not only negative, but clearly false. If I
didn't know you better I would conclude from your comments that you don't have a
clue concerning the operation of RF amplifiers.



Since you chose to denigrate my writing instead of giving it a fair critique,
why did you broadcast it on the news group instead of discussing your position
with me privately? Since you have broadcast it I have no choice but to defend my
position by rebutting each and every one of your false statements on this thread
for all to see.



Thus I'm repeating your comments with my responses to them to set the record
straight.

Hi Walt,

I posted the Steps, contrary to the typical slap-dash past, as then
they've been ignored, speculated, and "interpreted" without direct
quotation for 130 postings from many authors before mine. The
material of Chapter 19A was thus in the public debate by invitation
long before I dipped my bucket into this well.

I posted each step individually to create separate, one topic threads
and to reduce the reading load of one 600 line submission.

Any issue of my not having backfilled missing knowledge to the Steps
is a comment on the Steps' original style, not the chapter's original
content. I am responsible for neither and I am doing the job of
editor revealing faults of ordering, and wholes in continuity. If
this is perceived as a personal slight, I am sorry.

Comparing my 9 posts as poison to the 130 others' treacle informs
everyone that I have at least attended specific technical points that
can be identified and correlated. In other words, I purposely and at
some great effort and time have taken personal responsibility for
explicit statements.

In any future correspondence, I will only respond to technical issues
within those threads to maintain continuity of discussion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common
sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I
felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself
from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Walter, I can delete posts as well as the next guy, the point is, I
shouldn't need to. You started the whole thing by giving Cecil the push.
You, he, and several other off topic posters have just close to ruined a
newsgroup that used to be a useful source of information concerning
antennas. Then there's always the rebuttal to the rebuttal ad nausium. I
know that you are as convinced as Bruene is of the sanctity of your
convictions, you should realize, that the vast majority of the rest of us
don't really care which of you are right. We've successfully managed to load
our rigs, work the world, and obtain some happiness without the knowledge
you insist on imparting to us. Please don't common sense Richard. With
common sense, you wouldn't have sent 19A to Cecil in the first place but
your ego got in the way.

I'll not entertain the group with any more of this, I would hope that you
take my earlier post to heart and get off the newsgroup unless you have
something to post that contributes to the antenna sciences.

W4ZCB

On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that Richard had
the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the newsgroup. With common sense
he should have known to send his comments to me, not to broadcast them. I felt I
had no choice but to put my rebuttal in the same place to defend myself from
from his unwarrented comments.

Walt, W2DU

Walter, when I placed my page unwinantennas.com/ on this antenna
discussion group
you and Richard had the gall to attack me and my work just for the fun
of destruction.
My page which is on antennas by the way shows the path why antennas
can be any
shape ,size or configuration including variable elevation as long as
it is in equilibrium.
You and Richard took on the quest to crush the idea before it was
discussed fully while Richard denied
that the Gaussin progression could not be equal to Maxwells law., A
position he reversed himself on
a few months later without apology after discussion was succesfully
dissed. You as a expert book author chose gthe path of insults without
one iota of professional comment.
Shame on both of you. This group is for the discussion of antennas and
when I brought forward the
equilibrium matter forward I beat you to the punch by providing the
mathematical aproach first.
Neither of you discussed seriously what I proferred so neither of you
could find fault with it and Richard was particarly vicious
with his attacks and not once finding an error. You both destroyed the
idea of antenna discussion and debate on this newsgroup
because you both over estimate your own abilities while taking the
pagth of destruction. I worked hard at what I did and then shared it
with my fellow amateurs so all could enjoy. You Walt and Richard
deserve each other, as they say,what you sow so may you reap!. Some
day hams will be allowed to discuss or debate antenna matters without
fear of attack from you and your followers who provide nothing of
technical content to the discussion searching only for a "me too"
aproach. Maybe now that both of you have shown your true colours or
GALL as you call it other true hams will come back and discuss
antennas without being pushed aside. Wiered how you both take offense
of a tactic that you have practiced for years upon others with some
relish and now complain of the tone of debate or critism that do not
match your own position of chief adjudicater on the subject of
radiation.
Art Unwin
Unwinantennas.com/

"Lumpy" wrote in message
...
Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com


If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.

On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert