[Ian Iveson]

Not indignant. The mild invective was purely for amusement,
and offered, gratis, for you to share.

I'm sure if you check back through posts here you will find
that a high load has always been a low impedance, and a low
load is a high impedance.

You appear to have ignored the incontrovertible truth that
an open circuit is a low load.

Consider also "lightly loaded".

Consider also *looking it up*.

It's me that used the term, and I have clarified what I
meant by it. End of story. Time for you all to stop
whinging.

Ian

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:06:40 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner
wrote:

On Oct 2, 11:09 pm, Ian Bell
wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
flipper wrote:

If I understood his meaning he has the relative
effect
backwards.

For a given shunt inductance a lower load has better
LF
response
(shunt less significant).

This is the first time for many years that the meaning
of
the term "load" in this context has been challenged.

Generally, I have avoided the issue and used the
less-easily
misunderstood term "load resistance" or just
"resistance".
Lately, there has been so little discussion by
amateurs that
the jargon of commercial operators, or "professionals"
as
they prefer to call themselves, has erected barriers
against
incursion. Now the self-styled professionals are
getting
sloppy.

An open circuit represents zero load, right? So a high
load
resistance is a low load.

Moot. An open circuit implies 'no' load which could
equally imply infinite resistance.

This is basic stuff.

An open circuit sure is NO LOAD PRESENT but load ohms is
always the
result of an equation and always = V / I and if I = 0.0
Amps then the
load = V / 0 = infinite number of ohms = very high
resistance value in
ohms.

A low load is always assumed to be a low ohm value load,
usually in
comparison to a source resistance so if Rsource = 100 ohms
then a load
of 10 ohms is a low load, and it is never a high load
resistance. The
context helps determine the meaning.
A load of 1,000ohms is a high value load resistance - in
comparision
to the Rsource of 100 ohms.

With all due respect I dispute your contention that 'low
load' is
"always" assumed to be an 'ohm value' and Iveson has a
point that it's
context sensitive. For example, if one is clearly talking
about power
then a 'low load' could be referring to 'low power' and,
so, perhaps a
'high impedance'.

However, I also dispute his argument about "in this
context" because
the issue at hand was an inductance, specifically it's
impedance at
frequency, in parallel with 'the load' and I don't think
of inductor
(or capacitor, or resistor, etc.) impedance in parallel
with 'power'
but with other impedances (which may be why you consider
it 'always'
ohms).

I'm sure it was blindingly obvious to his own mind's eye
but we don't
have that 'context' and it's just a shame he decided to
get all
indignant even though I specifically qualified with "If I
understood
his meaning." I apparently did *not* 'understand his
meaning' but, in
my own defense, that's because I'm not a mind reader.


Patrick Turner.

Cheers

ian





I'll try to use more accessible language in the
future.

Ian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -