Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Hi Dave,

I offered a very simple test. There is the path of an objective
result, or the path of a subjective and ponderous appeal.

You do have a rig, do you not? You could perform the several steps to
come to a conclusion I presume - otherwise disabuse me of this talent
I inferred in your behalf and state which political party you are
affiliated with.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm a retired EE and have used stubs extensively in USAF
Missile systems C-band and S-band design. They work, they get warm, they
increase the insertion loss in the transmission line system, they work,
they work, ...

We use the word 'THEORY' too loosely in ham discussions. Theory is the
state of experimental verification between Hypothesis and Law. Many
times we use the word 'Theory' when we should say that
Physics/Mathematics explain the observation as follows: etc.

In a shorted 1/4 wavelength transmission line 'stub' we have a current
maximum at the physical short circuit. We have a high impedance 1/4
wavelength from the physical short circuit. The voltage and current have
a sinusoidal relationship along the length of the 'stub'. There is a
forward and reflected wave within the 'stub'.

There are several loss components within the 'stub' including I^2*R and
V^2/Rl [Capacitive dielectric losses] and 1/2L*I^2 [Leakage Inductance
losses]. Therefore the presence of a stub increase the insertion loss in
the transmission line sub-system; conversely, the removal of the stub
reduces the insertion loss in the transmission line sub-system.

In EM Physics, circa 1958-59, the equations of state for the stub
included both a transient response and a steady state response. I have
not solved these equations in more than 20 years [I probably forgot how
to solve them in any event! ]

With all this said and done I find it interesting to follow the
discussions and learn many things, some of which are correct grin.