>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>> Behalf Of measures
>> Assuming that hams are not capable of adjusting the load-C for a
>> specified screen-current, is a load of Bandini. Is Mr. Rauch on some
>> kind of superiority trip or what?
>Measures' "superior attitude" strikes again. For generations amateurs
>have been taught to tune g-g amplifiers for maximum output. Tune for
The screen is not dipped, Joe. It is peaked with the tank.
>load for specified screen current is foreign ... just
>listen to the garbage from some of the mistuned tetrode amplifiers
>that have been showing up over the last couple years.
>> Multronics make a line of suitable insuuctors. Jennings makes a line of
>> suitable capacitors. With 9-bands, general coverage makes more sense
>> than a bandswitch.
>Why do you insist on this kind of stuff?
Because I know that bandswitching a 9-bander does not represent good
engineering practice. Furthermore, 28 - 29.7 MHz and 3.5 - 4.0 MHz need
two additional tuned circuits per band. How practical is an
>The designer already said
>that a vacuum capacitor was not acceptable as is a rotary inductor,
>no doubt. There is a significant cost impact (not including the
>need for a bandswitch on the input anyway) that would make such a
>product commercially unviable.
So is an 11-position bandswitch.
>Not everyone shares your design priorities (amplifiers with > $4.5K
$4500 is no big deal, Joe. I know guys who have over $200k in their ham
> If you don't have anything positive to contribute keep
>your hands off the keyboard.
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com