On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:51:03 -0500, "Steve Nosko"
wrote:

Side Comment:

Unfortunately, Richard Clark, the essence of your comment is completely
lost on me. I haven't the faintest idea what you mean. Are you criticizing
the quote or supporting it? Whatever...

I am criticizing it AND the lack of response to the explicit question.
Cut-and-paste journalism is as cheap as a dime a page at the Xerox
machine.

If I asked you to give me a definition of Ohm's law expressed with
three variables (one dependant and two independent); then wouldn't it
seem obtuse to get a philosophy of laminar flow in pipelines?

Real content:

well, it is immaterial to the question at hand as it neither attends
Source Z nor Load Reflections. Except to allow:
by diverting the unwanted TX signals to a load instead of the PA device..

I believe his intent (I'm guessing) is to show an authoritative report
that the output Z of a power amplifier is not equal to the load or
transmission line impedance, right?

Where does it say that!? You had to guess, so that makes it less than
explicit, and now we have two questions to answer instead of one. Is
this accumulation of questions a linear or power progression? Web
debate is notorious for arguing the color of the table, then its
shape, then the number of chairs... before you get to the debate at
all.

If this posting had been headed with the answer "I don't know -
but...."

As I stated before (with spelling corrected):

Get this MPT theorem blockage out of your minds... It is a synthetic
restriction.

I didn't infer it, much less explicitly address it. I made a
statement of fact, and it is quantifiable and measurable. Whatever
occurs as a consequence of it is entirely another matter.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC