On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:14:46 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Mendenhall is wrong.

Hi Richard,

But this gets curiouser and curiouser (as Alice through the Looking
Glass would offer).

Cited as an example of the "NOT 50 Ohm" society (and one of its
leading proponents) we find that Geoff Mendenhall's notable
achievement in 1968 was building a 400W FM amplifier. Truly a
hands-on achievement. Now if we simply review the historical archive
and ask Geoff himself what the Z of his design was, we find by his own
hand:
RF Output Impedance: 50 Ohms

Let's see, no technical argument, and sources that are
self-contradicting. Whatchagonnado? Punt? :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
But this gets curiouser and curiouser (as Alice through the Looking
Glass would offer).

Cited as an example of the "NOT 50 Ohm" society (and one of its
leading proponents) we find that Geoff Mendenhall's notable
achievement in 1968 was building a 400W FM amplifier. Truly a
hands-on achievement. Now if we simply review the historical archive
and ask Geoff himself what the Z of his design was, we find by his own
hand:
RF Output Impedance: 50 Ohms

Let's see, no technical argument, and sources that are
self-contradicting. Whatchagonnado? Punt? :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
Now if we simply review the historical archive
and ask Geoff himself what the Z of his design was,
we find by his own hand:
RF Output Impedance: 50 Ohms

Let's see, no technical argument, and sources that are
self-contradicting. Whatchagonnado? Punt? :-)
________________

You assume he refers to the source impedance of/at output of the amplifier.
More likely he is following convention and stating the load impedance that
the amplifier was designed to work into.

The source impedance of most transmitters is not published even today. If
it was, probably we wouldn't be having all of this confusion about it, and
its effects.

RF

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:25:02 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

You assume

Hi OM,

That is called a punt.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
"Richard Fry" wrote:

You assume

That is called a punt.
__________

Neither of us can write that our conclusion about that spec was based on
fact. Neither of us knows.

RF

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 12:21:21 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote
"Richard Fry" wrote:

You assume

That is called a punt.
__________

Neither of us can write that our conclusion about that spec was based on
fact. Neither of us knows.

Hi OM,

This is called indicting your own authority - far more desperate than
a punt.

So,to this point you have failed to offer a technical discussion
(Xeroxed work of others accomplishments offered in its place is rather
banal), no personal experience at the bench to support your thesis,
you condemn your own authority, and you complain of my attitude. Of
those, perhaps the last is accurate as I find your responses to my
technical comments (supported by others you claimed would not rise to
a common camp) are met with risible content.

Even in the comedic foray you are seriously mismatched.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
authority - far more desperate than
a punt.

...So,to this point you have failed to offer ... personal experience
at the bench to support your thesis...

Incorrect. See my post earlier today about reflection measurements I made
of TV transmit antenna systems. That's better than the bench. It's real
life. The thesis has been proven.

Even in the comedic foray you are seriously mismatched.

An arena in which I don't (and don't wish to) compete, however.

RF

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:13:36 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

The thesis has been proven.

Hi OM,

It's always fun to find in the heat of discussion an opponent who
impeaches his own witnesses. This is like how Reggie abandons Lords
Kelvinator and Plushbottom to their graves when a troll is so much
more entertaining with that glass of wine. Such are the vagaries of
esteem so lightly held by gossamer minds.

It has been quite amusing. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gentlemen, excuse me butting in.

I suspect all these learned articles to be invalid because the authors
incorrectly assume the source impedance to be constant and the load
impedance to be the variable in any analyses or sets of measurements.

Whereas the internal or source impedance is actually a function of the load
(and many other factors).

I have not read these papers or articles but base my comments on what I have
gleaned from newsgroup conversations over the years.

In brief, how can you have a conjugate match with the source impedance
hopping about trying to follow the load? ;o)
----
Reg, G4FGQ

===================================

You assume he refers to the source impedance of/at output of the
amplifier.
More likely he is following convention and stating the load impedance that
the amplifier was designed to work into.

The source impedance of most transmitters is not published even today. If
it was, probably we wouldn't be having all of this confusion about it, and
its effects.

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"In brief, how can you have a conjugate match with the source impedance
hopping about trying to follow the load?"

I think you take control of the process and tune for maximum smoke.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI