On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:29:49 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Not at all. The purpose of my contributions are as a means of getting
attention to my product, thereby gaining me much Guinness.

Oh yes. There's the product-plugging as well. I'd forgotten about
that.

Where on earth did you get this daft idea that I post for the good of
the people? As I have noted many times, there is no such thing as
selfless altruism, its all for ulterior motives. We are all inherently
selfish. I absolute agree that everything I do is ultimately geared
toward my self interest, or to be more exact, the self interest of my
genes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anyone who claims that they take
action for the benefit of others, at a net determinate to themselves are
either, liars, fools, or deluded.

I disagree. You personally may well be motivated by selfishness as I
don't doubt are very many people. But to say that everyone's like you
is nonsense, quite frankly. There have been ample demonstrations of
others' ability to be helpful for no self-gain whatsoever on this
newsgroup alone. But I give you credit for making no bones about your
motivations anyway. :-)

With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and with
all due respect to Winfred, is more qualified than myself on electronics
matters.?

Er, the guy's a senior professor of electonics at Harvard, Kev. He
probably knows more about the subject than the rest of us put
together.

This one is easy. I'm right. As far as the class A amp goes, its a no
contest. It can't possible form a modulator without relying on the
non-linear behaviour of the transistor. Its not debatable. I have
explained the details already.

Well clearly it *is* debatable from what I've seen in this thread! You
simply believe you know best and that's that.

Regarding the definition of linearity, it is an open book. There is no
single absolute correct definition. What we have here is a play on
words, where some one is claiming that his version of the word
definition is the only valid one, even whem most don't use it that way.
A linear operator in mathematics, or linearity, is used in a different
sense then it is used in analogue design. An object that satisfies the
definition of a linear system in mathematics, is not one that is usually
applicable to analogue design, and as used by, essentially, all analogue
designers. The analogue definition of linearity is much more
restrictive. For example, a linear amplifier in electronics is generally
restricted to those amplifiers such that the output voltage or current
is a simple constant times the input voltage or current, with or without
an offset. That is, there is a *linear* = *straight* *line* relation
between output and input. This is equivalent to requiring that the
output only contains frequencies present at its input, i.e. no
distortion. Some other mathematical definitions of linearity would not
be so restrictive. For example, suppose a signal is fed through a magic
analogue Fourier transform device that converts the input voltage to
that of its Fourier transform. You would be hard pressed to get someone
to agree that the output signal is not a gross distortion of its input,
despite the fact that the Fourier transform is mathematically a linear
transform. Sure, some high brow might like to claim that his definition
is the "real" one, but words only mean what the majority means by them,
and in this case, a "linear" system, is one with a straight/linear line
relation between input and output.

I can't argue with any of that, but there again I'm no expert. I have
to say, though, that I've always found it very curious that radio hams
refer to their bolt-on, high-power, aftermarket boosters as "linear
amplifiers." You can't get any *less* linear than class C!
Or can you?
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:29:49 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Not at all. The purpose of my contributions are as a means of getting
attention to my product, thereby gaining me much Guinness.

Oh yes. There's the product-plugging as well. I'd forgotten about
that.

Where on earth did you get this daft idea that I post for the good of
the people? As I have noted many times, there is no such thing as
selfless altruism, its all for ulterior motives. We are all
inherently selfish. I absolute agree that everything I do is
ultimately geared toward my self interest, or to be more exact, the
self interest of my genes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anyone
who claims that they take action for the benefit of others, at a net
determinate to themselves are either, liars, fools, or deluded.

I disagree. You personally may well be motivated by selfishness as I
don't doubt are very many people.

Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution.

But to say that everyone's like you
is nonsense, quite frankly.

Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't
really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure
you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are
a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will
convince you otherwise.

There have been ample demonstrations of
others' ability to be helpful for no self-gain whatsoever on this
newsgroup alone.

You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to
look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does
things for the benefit of others.

I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of
replicators.

Axioms:

1 Traits are passed on to offspring.
2 Traits are randamlly generated.
3 Traits are selected by the environment.

Now consider replicater A, that replicates *consistently* better than
replicater B, say by 1%, due to a certain trait. After 1000
generations, what is the distribution of A/B?

This all takes time to explain in detail, but the gist is if any
replicater takes an action that results in a *net* *final* disadvantage,
the other replicators, will replicate themselves better. Its simple
math. We can only observe the best replicators.

Obviously, it gets quite complicated, if doing some good to another, can
result in a net beifit by returned favours, then a replicater will do
so. Nevertheless its still inherently "selfish". In addition, a trait
might not be consistently better, e.g. the larger one gets that enables
one to fend for themselves better, is mitigated by the fact that one
needs more food and other resources.

Have a look on the web for "the selfish gene" or get the book.


But I give you credit for making no bones about your
motivations anyway. :-)

I was not suggesting that I am always consciously doing things in a
selfish manner. I am accepting the fact that its inherent from millions
of years of evolution that we are all basically selfish, and there not
much we can do about it.


With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and
with all due respect to Winfred, is more qualified than myself on
electronics matters.?

Er, the guy's a senior professor of electonics at Harvard, Kev. He
probably knows more about the subject than the rest of us put
together.

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design,
although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may
well know different things.


This one is easy. I'm right. As far as the class A amp goes, its a no
contest. It can't possible form a modulator without relying on the
non-linear behaviour of the transistor. Its not debatable. I have
explained the details already.

Well clearly it *is* debatable from what I've seen in this thread! You
simply believe you know best and that's that.

But this part of it isnt. I gave the analysis of how the class A
modulator actually works. Its a fact. Its a standard and accepted result
by anyone knowledgably in the field.

I don't claim that gwhite's definition of linearity is inherently wrong,
only that it is not the one used in general analogue design. My argument
was not about the definition of linearity, it was about gwhite's claim
that his class A amp achieved a modulation function *without* relying on
the inherent non linearity of the transistors emitter current verses
vbe. This claim is absolutely false.


Regarding the definition of linearity, it is an open book. There is
no single absolute correct definition. What we have here is a play on
words, where some one is claiming that his version of the word
definition is the only valid one, even whem most don't use it that
way. A linear operator in mathematics, or linearity, is used in a
different sense then it is used in analogue design. An object that
satisfies the definition of a linear system in mathematics, is not
one that is usually applicable to analogue design, and as used by,
essentially, all analogue designers. The analogue definition of
linearity is much more restrictive. For example, a linear amplifier
in electronics is generally restricted to those amplifiers such that
the output voltage or current is a simple constant times the input
voltage or current, with or without an offset. That is, there is a
*linear* = *straight* *line* relation between output and input. This
is equivalent to requiring that the output only contains frequencies
present at its input, i.e. no distortion. Some other mathematical
definitions of linearity would not be so restrictive. For example,
suppose a signal is fed through a magic analogue Fourier transform
device that converts the input voltage to that of its Fourier
transform. You would be hard pressed to get someone to agree that
the output signal is not a gross distortion of its input, despite
the fact that the Fourier transform is mathematically a linear
transform. Sure, some high brow might like to claim that his
definition is the "real" one, but words only mean what the majority
means by them, and in this case, a "linear" system, is one with a
straight/linear line relation between input and output.

I can't argue with any of that, but there again I'm no expert. I have
to say, though, that I've always found it very curious that radio hams
refer to their bolt-on, high-power, aftermarket boosters as "linear
amplifiers." You can't get any *less* linear than class C!
Or can you?

And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs.
Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. Average power,
instantaneous voltage...

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design,
although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may
well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched? The surname of this forum is *design*. I, for one, would
prefer to see this hypothesis tested by deeds rather than by words. On
this forum, I don't care if its spelled analogue or analog - just make
it work and explain why. IMO, no one here needs to prove anything;
however, it would certaily be interesting to watch such a *contest* if
it were all in good fun and sport.

Best Regards,

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/

Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue
design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win
know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely.
However, we may well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched?

I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8"


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue
design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win
know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely.
However, we may well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched?

I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8"

All talk, then. Pity, I would have enjoyed the sport of a contest. It
seems this issue has been smothered with words. If one could apply the
"science" to "design", the words would have more meaning.

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue
design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win
know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely.
However, we may well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched?

I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8"

All talk, then. Pity, I would have enjoyed the sport of a contest. It
seems this issue has been smothered with words. If one could apply the
"science" to "design", the words would have more meaning.

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/

Frank Raffaeli wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue
design, although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win
know more than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely.
However, we may well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched?

I don't know. How tall is he, I'm only 5'8"


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...

[snipped much voluminous banter]

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design,
although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may
well know different things.

[snipped more banter]

Does the above pose a question, or is it mere rhetoric? Could the
scientific method be applied with gusto? Are Win and Kev evenly
matched? The surname of this forum is *design*. I, for one, would
prefer to see this hypothesis tested by deeds rather than by words. On
this forum, I don't care if its spelled analogue or analog - just make
it work and explain why. IMO, no one here needs to prove anything;
however, it would certaily be interesting to watch such a *contest* if
it were all in good fun and sport.

Best Regards,

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:29:49 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Not at all. The purpose of my contributions are as a means of getting
attention to my product, thereby gaining me much Guinness.

Oh yes. There's the product-plugging as well. I'd forgotten about
that.

Where on earth did you get this daft idea that I post for the good of
the people? As I have noted many times, there is no such thing as
selfless altruism, its all for ulterior motives. We are all
inherently selfish. I absolute agree that everything I do is
ultimately geared toward my self interest, or to be more exact, the
self interest of my genes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anyone
who claims that they take action for the benefit of others, at a net
determinate to themselves are either, liars, fools, or deluded.

I disagree. You personally may well be motivated by selfishness as I
don't doubt are very many people.

Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution.

But to say that everyone's like you
is nonsense, quite frankly.

Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't
really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure
you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are
a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will
convince you otherwise.

There have been ample demonstrations of
others' ability to be helpful for no self-gain whatsoever on this
newsgroup alone.

You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to
look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does
things for the benefit of others.

I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of
replicators.

Axioms:

1 Traits are passed on to offspring.
2 Traits are randamlly generated.
3 Traits are selected by the environment.

Now consider replicater A, that replicates *consistently* better than
replicater B, say by 1%, due to a certain trait. After 1000
generations, what is the distribution of A/B?

This all takes time to explain in detail, but the gist is if any
replicater takes an action that results in a *net* *final* disadvantage,
the other replicators, will replicate themselves better. Its simple
math. We can only observe the best replicators.

Obviously, it gets quite complicated, if doing some good to another, can
result in a net beifit by returned favours, then a replicater will do
so. Nevertheless its still inherently "selfish". In addition, a trait
might not be consistently better, e.g. the larger one gets that enables
one to fend for themselves better, is mitigated by the fact that one
needs more food and other resources.

Have a look on the web for "the selfish gene" or get the book.


But I give you credit for making no bones about your
motivations anyway. :-)

I was not suggesting that I am always consciously doing things in a
selfish manner. I am accepting the fact that its inherent from millions
of years of evolution that we are all basically selfish, and there not
much we can do about it.


With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and
with all due respect to Winfred, is more qualified than myself on
electronics matters.?

Er, the guy's a senior professor of electonics at Harvard, Kev. He
probably knows more about the subject than the rest of us put
together.

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design,
although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may
well know different things.


This one is easy. I'm right. As far as the class A amp goes, its a no
contest. It can't possible form a modulator without relying on the
non-linear behaviour of the transistor. Its not debatable. I have
explained the details already.

Well clearly it *is* debatable from what I've seen in this thread! You
simply believe you know best and that's that.

But this part of it isnt. I gave the analysis of how the class A
modulator actually works. Its a fact. Its a standard and accepted result
by anyone knowledgably in the field.

I don't claim that gwhite's definition of linearity is inherently wrong,
only that it is not the one used in general analogue design. My argument
was not about the definition of linearity, it was about gwhite's claim
that his class A amp achieved a modulation function *without* relying on
the inherent non linearity of the transistors emitter current verses
vbe. This claim is absolutely false.


Regarding the definition of linearity, it is an open book. There is
no single absolute correct definition. What we have here is a play on
words, where some one is claiming that his version of the word
definition is the only valid one, even whem most don't use it that
way. A linear operator in mathematics, or linearity, is used in a
different sense then it is used in analogue design. An object that
satisfies the definition of a linear system in mathematics, is not
one that is usually applicable to analogue design, and as used by,
essentially, all analogue designers. The analogue definition of
linearity is much more restrictive. For example, a linear amplifier
in electronics is generally restricted to those amplifiers such that
the output voltage or current is a simple constant times the input
voltage or current, with or without an offset. That is, there is a
*linear* = *straight* *line* relation between output and input. This
is equivalent to requiring that the output only contains frequencies
present at its input, i.e. no distortion. Some other mathematical
definitions of linearity would not be so restrictive. For example,
suppose a signal is fed through a magic analogue Fourier transform
device that converts the input voltage to that of its Fourier
transform. You would be hard pressed to get someone to agree that
the output signal is not a gross distortion of its input, despite
the fact that the Fourier transform is mathematically a linear
transform. Sure, some high brow might like to claim that his
definition is the "real" one, but words only mean what the majority
means by them, and in this case, a "linear" system, is one with a
straight/linear line relation between input and output.

I can't argue with any of that, but there again I'm no expert. I have
to say, though, that I've always found it very curious that radio hams
refer to their bolt-on, high-power, aftermarket boosters as "linear
amplifiers." You can't get any *less* linear than class C!
Or can you?

And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs.
Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. Average power,
instantaneous voltage...

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:29:49 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Not at all. The purpose of my contributions are as a means of getting
attention to my product, thereby gaining me much Guinness.

Oh yes. There's the product-plugging as well. I'd forgotten about
that.

Where on earth did you get this daft idea that I post for the good of
the people? As I have noted many times, there is no such thing as
selfless altruism, its all for ulterior motives. We are all
inherently selfish. I absolute agree that everything I do is
ultimately geared toward my self interest, or to be more exact, the
self interest of my genes. I have never claimed otherwise. Anyone
who claims that they take action for the benefit of others, at a net
determinate to themselves are either, liars, fools, or deluded.

I disagree. You personally may well be motivated by selfishness as I
don't doubt are very many people.

Er.. we all are. Its explained in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Its a basic tenet of the modern theory of evolution.

But to say that everyone's like you
is nonsense, quite frankly.

Not at all. You must be one of the deluded ones. That is, you haven't
really thought about or studied evolution in enough detail. I am sure
you are genuine in this belief, but you are wrong. Of course, if you are
a believer in god or some other religion, then nothing I can say will
convince you otherwise.

There have been ample demonstrations of
others' ability to be helpful for no self-gain whatsoever on this
newsgroup alone.

You miss the point. The term is *net* benefit or advantage. You need to
look at this *much* more deeply. Its only an illusion that one does
things for the benefit of others.

I have explained this quite a few times. Its based on the theory of
replicators.

Axioms:

1 Traits are passed on to offspring.
2 Traits are randamlly generated.
3 Traits are selected by the environment.

Now consider replicater A, that replicates *consistently* better than
replicater B, say by 1%, due to a certain trait. After 1000
generations, what is the distribution of A/B?

This all takes time to explain in detail, but the gist is if any
replicater takes an action that results in a *net* *final* disadvantage,
the other replicators, will replicate themselves better. Its simple
math. We can only observe the best replicators.

Obviously, it gets quite complicated, if doing some good to another, can
result in a net beifit by returned favours, then a replicater will do
so. Nevertheless its still inherently "selfish". In addition, a trait
might not be consistently better, e.g. the larger one gets that enables
one to fend for themselves better, is mitigated by the fact that one
needs more food and other resources.

Have a look on the web for "the selfish gene" or get the book.


But I give you credit for making no bones about your
motivations anyway. :-)

I was not suggesting that I am always consciously doing things in a
selfish manner. I am accepting the fact that its inherent from millions
of years of evolution that we are all basically selfish, and there not
much we can do about it.


With all due respect to you here, why do you suppose that Win, and
with all due respect to Winfred, is more qualified than myself on
electronics matters.?

Er, the guy's a senior professor of electonics at Harvard, Kev. He
probably knows more about the subject than the rest of us put
together.

Whilst, I do agree that Win is very knowledgeable and an expert, I am
also an expert. I have been doing this rather a long time as well you
know. The fact that I am not an academic is not relevant. In all
honesty, there is not much I don't know about general analogue design,
although, obviously, I don't claim to know it all. Does Win know more
than me? Unlikely. Or do I know more than Win. Unlikely. However, we may
well know different things.


This one is easy. I'm right. As far as the class A amp goes, its a no
contest. It can't possible form a modulator without relying on the
non-linear behaviour of the transistor. Its not debatable. I have
explained the details already.

Well clearly it *is* debatable from what I've seen in this thread! You
simply believe you know best and that's that.

But this part of it isnt. I gave the analysis of how the class A
modulator actually works. Its a fact. Its a standard and accepted result
by anyone knowledgably in the field.

I don't claim that gwhite's definition of linearity is inherently wrong,
only that it is not the one used in general analogue design. My argument
was not about the definition of linearity, it was about gwhite's claim
that his class A amp achieved a modulation function *without* relying on
the inherent non linearity of the transistors emitter current verses
vbe. This claim is absolutely false.


Regarding the definition of linearity, it is an open book. There is
no single absolute correct definition. What we have here is a play on
words, where some one is claiming that his version of the word
definition is the only valid one, even whem most don't use it that
way. A linear operator in mathematics, or linearity, is used in a
different sense then it is used in analogue design. An object that
satisfies the definition of a linear system in mathematics, is not
one that is usually applicable to analogue design, and as used by,
essentially, all analogue designers. The analogue definition of
linearity is much more restrictive. For example, a linear amplifier
in electronics is generally restricted to those amplifiers such that
the output voltage or current is a simple constant times the input
voltage or current, with or without an offset. That is, there is a
*linear* = *straight* *line* relation between output and input. This
is equivalent to requiring that the output only contains frequencies
present at its input, i.e. no distortion. Some other mathematical
definitions of linearity would not be so restrictive. For example,
suppose a signal is fed through a magic analogue Fourier transform
device that converts the input voltage to that of its Fourier
transform. You would be hard pressed to get someone to agree that
the output signal is not a gross distortion of its input, despite
the fact that the Fourier transform is mathematically a linear
transform. Sure, some high brow might like to claim that his
definition is the "real" one, but words only mean what the majority
means by them, and in this case, a "linear" system, is one with a
straight/linear line relation between input and output.

I can't argue with any of that, but there again I'm no expert. I have
to say, though, that I've always found it very curious that radio hams
refer to their bolt-on, high-power, aftermarket boosters as "linear
amplifiers." You can't get any *less* linear than class C!
Or can you?

And that illustrates the point very well. Linearity is up for grabs.
Just what is the term "linear" being applied to. The class c amplifier
is non linear in detailed operation but the envelope of the output is
still linearly related to the modulating input signal.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.