Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] parasitics

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] parasitics
From: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 15:17:37 -0800
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  km1h@juno.com [SMTP:km1h@juno.com]
>Sent:  Wednesday, April 22, 1998 5:44 PM
>To:    amps@contesting.com
>Subject:       Re: [AMPS] parasitics
>
>
>On Tue, 21 Apr 98 22:40:23 -0500 Jon Ogden <jono@webspun.com> writes:
>>>If you continue to live in a parasitic world you will never accept
>>>reality Rich. I dont intend to waste my time in an argument with someone
>>>who can not show proof to support a theory nor accept the possibility 
>>>of another idea
>>>.
The problem with "another idea" is failure to explain the circumstantial 
evidence.  


>>>Bent filaments or anything else means absolutely squat unless a "real" 
>>>engineering study  can confirm your "theory". So far I find no 
>>>support for it outside of a few that can offer no proof either. Myself , I 
>>>dont believe it at all.
>>>
Since I know that "squat" is a euphemism for feces, I pretty much had 
your Position figured out, Carl.  
>>
>>Quite the contrary, Carl.  You, yourself have answered some questions 
>>of mine that begin to confirm some of Rich's theories. 
>
>Jon, if you believe in those theories that strongly then I suggest that
>you and Rich team up and publish an article in a reputable journal. I am
>a strong believer in peer review 

Such journals depend on paid advertising.  The month after the critique 
of "The Nearly Perfect Amplifier" was published in the Sept., 1994 issue 
of *QST*:
1.   the employer of Mr. Tom Rauch paid for 30-something full pages of 
*QST* advertising.  
2.  in a letter, Mr. Rauch threatens to sue me and *QST* if my rebuttal 
to the Sept., 1994 critique is published in *QST*.
3.  I discovered that letters sent by ARRL members in support of the "The 
Nearly Perfect Amplifier" were not being delivered to the desk of *QST* 
Technical Correspondence column editor, Mr. Paul Pagel.  
4.  I am informed that my rebuttal will not be published in *QST*.  


>and this reflector is read by only a
>tiny fraction of engineers. 
>
>Until that happens I will continue to be a dis-believer and will also be
>willing to make a public apology if I am wrong. 
>So how about it....does junk science really work?  
>
During the grate parasitics debate, Mr. Rauch said that gold has two 
melting points, and that AC Circuit Analysis does not apply to parallel 
Ls/Rs VHF parasitic suppressors (shortly after AC Circuit Analysis 
disproved his theory that virtually no VHF current flows in Ls). . 
  Junk Science?  .  .  Wes' copyrighted scientific measurements with a 
Hewlett-Packard Model 4191A RF Impedance Analyzer speak for themselves, 
even though he apparently would rather not.  .  


 
>[Richard W. Ehrhorn].....
>.....

cheers
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>