>
>> Rich said: "I would bypass the high-tech research, cut to the chase,
>> and try a lower Rp suppressor". This was in response to a method of
>> scientific approach to parasitic oscillation suppression.
>>
>> I suppose I should not comment on someone else's view, but it seems
>> rather sad to reject science and resort to a magic potion.
>
>It is also bad advice.
>
>The lowest Rp suppressor would be a direct short circuit.
>
? ... not a sound bet, Tom. . According to Wes' measurements, with
R-supp = 100-ohms, by changing L-supp from #18 ga. copper (Cu) to #18
ga. resistance-wire, Rp dropped from 166-ohms to 102-ohms. In other
words, Rp works in reverse -- i.e., More is Less in the world of series
and parallel equivalents. A short would have a high Rp. // REF: ...
from page 7 ('Finding Impedance by Solving for Admittance) March, 1989
*QST* "Calculating Power Dissipation in Parasitic-Suppressor Resistors".
>So what Rich is saying, in effect, is to not use any suppressor at
>all. That would be the lowest possible Rp.
>
? Which is seemingly what the designer of the AL-1500 amplifier somewhat
ignorantly presumed. See Fig. 24 on my Web site.
>That is the real danger in ignoring how something works, and giving
>a canned solution.
>
? Perhaps the time has come for you to take an A.C. Circuit Analysis
course, Mr. Rauch?
>
Cheers
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|