W5DXP wrote:
Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
Yes! That principle of impedance substitution is so simple, so
fundamental, some people never notice it's there at all.

And you would apparently like to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone
who notices that the definition of impedance has changed in the process.
Shame on you for that attempt at obfuscation!

You are using that principle of impedance substitution whenever you
calibrate your antenna impedance bridge using known values of resistORS,
capacitORS and inductORS.

Of course *you* are aware of the difference in what's connected to the
instrument - you have more information than it has. The only claim Bill
and I have been making is that you cannot tell the difference from any
*electrical* measurement made at a single frequency in the steady
state... and those were exactly the conditions that burned up your
transmitter, so the substitution principle is valid for this branch of
the discussion.

That whole principle relies on the fact that, at the same frequency and
in the steady state, the "definition of impedance" in terms of its
electrical properties does *not* change. That's the whole point.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek