Richard Clark wrote:

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:

You conveniently trimmed off the rest of my statement. When the line
is lossy, it is possible to achieve a conjugate match at a point but nowhere
else. The requirement of a conjugate match for a lossy line is that the
impedance looking in either direction is the conjugate of the other direction.
That can be achieved at a single point in a lossy system, e.g. at the load.
The rule that if a conjugate match exists at one point, then a conjugate match
exists at all points, is *ONLY* true for lossless systems.

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 ...

Again, please note that you deliberately snipped the context of that
statement, not a very ethical thing to do.

is yet another in a long list of absurdities.

Well, since you changed the contextual conditions away from a possible
conjugate match, nothing in the new example cannot be explained by
achieving a conjugate match, since a conjugate match is impossible in
the new example. What do you think changing the context proves? Nothing
that you have said is true at the center of the sun. How's that for a
context change?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:25:33 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

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:

You conveniently trimmed off the rest of my statement.

You are welcome.

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.

Again, please note that you deliberately snipped the context of that
statement, not a very ethical thing to do.

This time, everyone welcomes it.

Nothing
that you have said is true at the center of the sun. How's that for a
context change?

Hi Cecil,

About average from you except this time you offered no solution for
either context change. As such, it appears your statement
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match ...
has no meaning outside of the center of the sun. I will leave that
you cannot demonstrate your statement anywhere in the known universe.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
As such, it appears your statement

everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match ...

has no meaning outside of the center of the sun.

None of my statements has any meaning outside of the context in which
they are offered (which you conventiently attempt to obscure). It appears
that you do not want to resolve anything. If so, I hope you won't mind
if others resolve your technical problems at the very time that you are
100% resistant to any resolution.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
None of my statements has any meaning outside of the context in which
they are offered

Hi Cecil,

Well, as this all thread started from one context:
everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match
being so encompassing as to enlarge beyond your capacity to explain,
we find ourselves with shortfalls of example to any context. Your
response of a Zo match is an embarrassing example of poor application
for conjugation, so it would appear that even your single context is
meaningless.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:16:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

None of my statements has any meaning outside of the context in which
they are offered

Well, as this all thread started from one context:

everything can be explained by achieving a conjugate match

being so encompassing as to enlarge beyond your capacity to explain,
we find ourselves with shortfalls of example to any context.

But that's not what I said, Richard. Everything within the
original context can be explained by achieving a conjugate
match but you deleted the context and therefore misquoted me.

If I say, "It is always daylight at 12 noon." and you quote
me as saying "It is always daylight ", you have turned my true
statement into a false statement which is not an ethical thing
to do.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:33:17 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If I say, "It is always daylight at 12 noon." and you quote
me as saying "It is always daylight ", you have turned my true
statement into a false statement which is not an ethical thing
to do.

Hi Cecil,

I don't know why you bother with discussion of ethics when you cannot
respond to the technical enquiry. This is your 12th entry in this
side thread that was NOT addressed to you and you have nothing to
offer but the squishy touchy problem of your perception of a moral
dilemma whose discussion is best left to a democrat running for
office.

And this silliness about "true statements" is absurd in its own right
and easily an example of a moral rigidity that brooks no contrary
evidence. Unlike you, I am fully aware of my errors, their source,
and their contribution or benign influence upon other discussion. You
have spent to much time in a binary world, a womb that has insulated
you from the reality of uneven edges and impure solutions. You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
You are
out of your element trying to force fit nature into the only solution
you have from a xeroxed page.

Maybe so, but that xeroxed page is what you offered as a reference.
That's why I xeroxed it. Nothing on that page has changed since I
xeroxed it. It still talks about a "resonant rise of voltage" in
series resonant circuits, the most probable cause of a variation in
SWR and the very thing that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----