The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Reg Edwards"
Subject: Re: output impedance
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:16:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Private individual
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <_FTy9.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:16:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> > To mention just the name of a theorem (whatever it is) parrot-fashion,
> > support of a personal argument conveys no additional information.
> Not true at all. I'd rather say "match the antenna to the souce as per
> the maximum power transfer theorum" rather then "The antenna impedence
> must be the complex conjuciate of the source impedience, becuase
Again, you have made another of my points. Perhaps several points. The name
"Maximum Power Theorem" not only conveys no information to the recipient in
the context of radio transmitters and antennas, it is extremely misleading.
Why? because a conjugate match does not exist in tha case of antennas,
feedlines and transmitters (at least in the very great majority of cases).
But having misled the recipient you have now effectively severed
communications with him simply by pulling the plug. How much other confusion
and educational damage have you caused by, in effect, misquoting and
usurping the authority of your superiors. ;o)
If you are not careful you could find yourself in a position to unjustly
accuse me of disbelieving in the Max Power Theorem. I do know what it's
about, its blindingly obvious, but for the life of me I can't think of the
The ability to drop names of theorems around newsgroups is by no means an
indication of a superior technical
On the other hand, if you omit all reference to a theorem but quote from one
on your OWN authority then that is passing valuable information. It also
allows the recipient the opportunity to come back and argue if he feels
inclined. But nobody is convinced if he feels he's being browbeaten by
unfamiliar names of theorems outside his own area of education.
> It lets the other party get the
> idea quickly if they know the theorum, or look it up if they dont.
This branch of the thread arose because someone attempted to answer a
question with the name of a theorem which was of no help. If the questioner
was familiar with the theorem or had access to the sort of book from where
to look it up he would not have asked the question in the first place. Are
you now getting the point ?
Passing the names of theorems is not of much use on newsgroups. It's no
better (or just as bad) as telling somebody to look up Charles H Reynalds
when the recipient has never heard of him, or the book has been out of print
for 100 years, or he can't afford it, or it has to be ordered from China, or
by then the questioner and everybody else will have lost interest.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup