Step 9.
We now compare the measured power delivered with the calculated power,
using the power transmission coefficient, 1 – ?2. The calculated power
delivered is: 100w × (1 – ?2) = 76.6w, compared to the 75w indicated
by the Bird wattmeter. However, because the new load impedance is less
than the original 50 ohms, and also reactive, the amplifier is now
overloaded and the pi-network is detuned from resonance. Consequently,
the plate current has increased from 260 to 290 ma, plate voltage has
dropped to 760 v, and DC input power has increased from 208 w to 220.4
w.

Points in response:
1.This is a surprising departure from reporting in the progression of
the protocol. We now find current and voltage reports where formerly
they were either dismissed or neglected. However, we will take these
as they are reported here.
2.It appears that the calculated power and the reported power agree,
this is not directly expressed, but neither these remarks are not
stated as being in conflict. Given the editorialization that inhabits
the protocol in general, these remarks are remarkably dry and
unconnected.
3.Following, with the editorial comment that the amplifier is now
overloaded, the connotation is necessarily a rejection of the thesis:
output source resistance of the RF power amplifier is non-dissipative;
otherwise the condition giving rise to the overload would be of no
particular consequence nor interest. Rather, the cautionary should
have been the amplifier is not delivering its Maximum Available Power
(once again, having raised this topic early on, it is curiously
missing as a rhetorical observation). The dialectic seems to have
promoted the subordinate thesis while the data in the observations
have destroyed it.
4.The detuned state is an untested conjecture. Its inclusion adds
nothing without both a rigorous examination and explaining the
speculative correlation as causation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC