>>? Dissipation. rating is not the subject of the *QST* article in
>>question.
>
>Hi Rich,
>
>I've never questioned your article or mentioned that in this debate. My
>point was strictly that I believe that resistors in parasitic suppressors
>fail not because of oscillations but because they lose their power
>dissipation capability due to heating and operating at elevated
>temperatures.
? On 10m, with too much L-sup, high anode supply potential, and AØ/NØN,
R-sup can melt-down. However, when R-sup fails on 15m, 20m, 40m or 80m,
there is seemingly no way that enough fundamental potential could be
developed across L-sup to damage R-sup.
>My argument was not based at all on disputing Ohms law.
>You seem to think that resistors fail becuase of parasitics. I disagree
? Then you need to demonstrate how much fundamental dissipation could
have existed on the freq. where a R-sup failure took place.
>and I was giving a technical reason why. And it's from experience too.
>
>I've never mentioned your article. That's a red herring.
>
? The *QST* article gives a non-calculus method of determining R-sup
dissipation. I fail to see how this article is a red-herring when we are
discussing R-sup dissipation.
>
- later, Jon
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures
--
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
|