This would be a more appropriate place to sort out the issues.
Ok,so Dave I spent some time using the eHam search function,to track down the alleged attacks on Breune on this forum.. So far I came up with only the two that I posted before. Perhaps there are more?
here they are again.
on Sept 08 2011
The worse thing in the world is to take the reflected wave model and try to use it inside the source. That's what Bruene did when the conjugate match mess got started.
on may 4 2010
In my opinion something useful and interesting has turned into two very polarized sides with one side being totally wrong (the Warren Bruene theory) and the other not always being correct in all cases.
Thats all I could find.
I could not find the statement about Bruene setting back amplifier theory years,or similar.
Heres one from QRZ 20 12 2011
You just proved Warren Bruene's QST series on PA behavior wrong with one simple load pull. :-)
another from QRZ
22 12 2011
The end result of measuring 15-20 PA stages under various conditions was the data mostly disagreed with Bruene's conclusions, and only in small areas disagreed with Maxwell. Since there was a lot of personal stuff going on, any hope of having a logical educational agreement was lost, I just bowed out of the debate.
You were there for those Dave.
I enjoyed that discussion and read it several times.
You were both very civil which made for a n enjoyable read.
I see you mildly defending Bruene in that thread.
Years ago, Warren Bruene pointed out that you have to have a whole number of 180 degree delays between the active devices in the PA and the point of doing the load-pull test to get a true picture of what the active device is really doing, and he's right. Or did he get this wrong as well, Tom? Every opportunity you get, you seem to delight in pointing out he got something else wrong. What have you got against this guy?
Any how if you could call these ,attacks,slurs,whatever ,they seem pretty feeble attempts .If they are attempts at all.
Not liking Tom is very different to bearing him ill-will and I'd be quite happy to leave him alone if he stops attacking Warren Bruene for no good reason.
The last "attack" was in December last year.on QRZ . what is your criteria for the attacks having stopped?An apology?
You two have a history of argument.
I suggest that you have an ulterior motive to come here and argue with Tom. Perhaps partly to defend your friend,but I suggest mostly you are driven by spite .
Of course I could be wrong ,and if you can point me to some more evidence to show Tom attacking Bruene,I would like to see it.
Now,go ahead and stick it to him Dave. I dont mind that at all.But please dont take us all here for fools.
I dont believe Tom needs defending here. He can hold his own.
I believe that your motives need to be questioned.