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