On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:50:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Instead of going over old material that you abandoned (and will only
abandon again), why not simply offer the group the conjugate of:

source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)

which was my query this time (or are you abandoning that too?).

So I don't know what you are trying to say. Therefore, I don't know
whether to agree with you or not.

Hi Cecil,

You don't have to know as it is not a matter of agreeing, it is a
matter of your statement offering:
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
and I see nothing about that in a halfwave line that instead achieves
a Zo match, not a conjugate. A conjugate has very specific properties
and you cannot provide an expression that offers the conjugate for the
situation:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=200 Ohm(resistive)
Hence, the generality you impart to Chipman, due to your limitations,
reveals it is neither a generality nor is it necessarily even a
derivation of Chipman. Your two pages of copy are 230-odd pages shy
of understanding.

Let's just juggle the notion of Zo matching out with a slight boundary
change:
source=200 Ohm(resistive)---50 ohm feedline---load=600 Ohm(resistive)
What is the expression you offer to support your statement that yields
the conjugate? Barring an answer, it follows your statement that
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
is yet another in a long list of absurdities.

Perhaps you should await Chipman's arrival (Waiting for Godot?) before
continuing on. However, given the consequences of that arrival for
others in this group, that could mean total abstinence in discussion
as so many seem to read him in the closet and find themselves locked
in a small, dark room.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC