This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0025_01C0DA10.DB0147C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is an ongoing "
Sounds like good articles! W/o having read them, I'll confess that I am at a loss to know the back ground. What is the debate? Also, generally when determining a conjugate match, S-Parameters are use
As I understand it, Mr. Maxwell asserts that linear amplifiers are conjugately matched. If this is true, the efficiency could not exceed 50%. cheers - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
OK. You are correct Rich. If conjugate match occurs, then an equal amount of power is absorbed by both source and load - hence the 50% efficiency. Conjugate match IS what is needed for maximum power
That is not correct, although it has crept into recent texts. I think that concept comes from taking a Thevenin model literally, as an actual circuit with a dissipative resistance in series with a s
Observations of a common layman..... Bruene and Maxwell both agree that there is no conjugate match from the plate block back toward the tube and plate choke. Bruene maintains that there is no conju
There can be no conjugate match in a non-linear system. Nonlinear in this context means a fractional cycle nonlinearity....not the linearity we normally consider where the output power tracks the in
It's interesting to note (and rightfully so) that space has been given to Walt in a League publication. Could they possibly believe there may be some truth in what he's been advocating all along? -Pa
It is my hope, Paul that the League is/will continue the fine tradition that Communications Quarterly always had. Over the years some really far-out and controversial pieces were printed without much
? About 10-yrs. ago, a QST staffer told me that they stopped publishing W. Maxwell's conjugate-matching info because of the discrepancy with linear amplifiers. cheers, Paul - Rich..., 805.386.3734,
? It seems to me that they need a technical editor with all 44 teeth, who isn't afraid to bite deserving advertisers, i.e. - another George Grammer. cheers, Phil - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.c
? It seems to me that they need a technical editor with all 44 teeth, who isn't afraid to bite deserving advertisers, i.e. - another George Grammer. So far, there are no "big gun" dealer advertisemen
? About 10-yrs. ago, a QST staffer told me that they stopped publishing W. Maxwell's conjugate-matching info because of the discrepancy with linear amplifiers. Now that Mr. Maxwell has clarified exa
? yea, verily. ? Of, by and for amateur radio advertisers. I subscribe to Consumer Reports magazine because it does not have advertising. cheers, Phil - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
This is exactly when we get into trouble. The minute we assume anyone always has everything correct and is almost infallible is the moment we can no longer trust our judgment. The ARRL works that wa
Walt isn't advocating anything that hasn't been described for many years in many texts. Walt isn't the one who came up with the idea or description of a conjugate match. The problem occurs because s
? Amen to that. There is a large, Very rich, organized religion headquartered in the Western United States that tells members to let the organization do their thinking. The National Socialist German
I assume nothing about anyone. The above comment meant that Bruene and Maxwell have forgotten more than most of us will ever know. Both have been wrong in the past on a few subjects. I have been wro
I've always had a conceptual problem with the idea of 'non-dissipative resistance', which tends to put me into the Bruene camp. When you consider a power bipolar transistor, it's 'output impedance' a
Linear Amplifiers may or may not be conjugately matched. For maximum power transfer to occur both in and out, and for the amplifier to be unconditionally stable, there must be a simultaneous conjugat