>I don't know who wrote this, but I believe I see the fundamental error
>which has led to so much confusion:
>
>>>Follow this simple series of facts........
>>>
>>>1.) Rich claims a "low Rp" is desirable, and we both agree his
>>>suppressor has lower VHF Rp than a stock suppressor.
>>>
>>>2.) A direct short has an Rp of zero ohms.
>>>
>_______________________________________________________________
>When you say "A direct short has an Rp of zero ohms" there is the
>error. A direct short IN THE SUPPRESSOR actually equates to an Rp of
>INFINITE ohms. When the series resistor goes to zero, the parallel
>equivalent goes to infinity, so the statement in #2 above is exactly
>backwards. With infinite Rp, the Q of the parasitic tank circuit
>becomes high, and oscillations become likely.
>
>The reason Rich's suppressor has a lower Rp is because it has a HIGHER
>series resistance, not lower, and certainly not a short.
>
>Make sense?
It makes sense, Bill.
Rich---
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|