On May 26, 2:33*pm, lu6etj wrote:
On 26 mayo, 02:26, Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:41:45 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

eight years it is a lot of time for not having arrived to a
consent!

Hi Miguel,

You got on this train rather late if all you see is eight years of it.
The circular references have entertainment value - so did vaudeville.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard

You got on this train rather late if all you see is eight years of it.

I am not mean that!

I clearly said=

"Always has been a pleasure for me to read you. I have learning very
much from your enthusiastic discussions. You made me think of things
that I never thought without your help. Thank you."

Miguel

Cecil, have forgotten that because the source resistance of the RF
power amp is non-dissipative, none of the reflected power is absorbed
therein?

Walt

On May 26, 1:56*pm, walt wrote:
Cecil, have forgotten that because the source resistance of the RF
power amp is non-dissipative, none of the reflected power is absorbed
therein?

Actually, this discussion is based on an example introduced by W7EL
which assumed a 50 ohm source resistor in his "food for thought,
forward and reflected power" article posted on his web page. The
source resistance of an actual RF power amp doesn't matter. W7EL's
example specified a 50 ohm resistor as the source impedance.

http://eznec.com/misc/Food_for_thought.pdf
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com