Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[Amps] Mailing list for parasitic osciallations.

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [Amps] Mailing list for parasitic osciallations.
From: 2 at vc.net (rlm)
Date: Fri Mar 14 12:43:20 2003

>rlm wrote:
>
>> How about a separate mailing list for power supplies where only amplifier
>> power supply discussions are allowed -- and all other topics are verboten?
>
>If *very detailed* discussion of power supply design, was repeatedly
>discussed by a *small group* of individuals and formed such a *huge*
>part of the mailing list, there would definitely be an excellent
>argument for a 'hv-power-supply' mailing list. But at this moment it is
>an issue that:
>
>a) Affects a lot of people - i.e. is of general interest.

**  Oscillation is an issue that effects all amplifier builders -- except 
those who use 813s.

>b) A large number of different people contribute to PSU design
>discussions. I have myself on a couple of occasions.
>c) The technical arguments are not that difficult to follow by the
>average person. 

Good point.  Non-switching PS design is old hat.  

>d) The same arguments don't keep being put forward. 

There are still those who believe that a FWB is superior to a FWD.  

>e) It is not like religion, where you are unlikely to convince a person
>believing in X that X is rubbish and they should accept Y. 
>
Those who do not accept AC circuit-analysis are in the same category.

>I'm not suggesting an 'hv-power-supply' mailing list should not be
>considered - it is perhaps not such a bad idea. It is perhaps the most
>obvious split, as 'amps' is a large mailing list which I do feel needs
>splitting up. 

I do not.  
>
>The reasons for my suggestion of a parasitic-osciallations mailing list
>is:
>
>a) The number of people contributing to the discussion seems quite
>small. Although I have not collected any statistics on it, I would guess
>95% of the posts are contributed by less a dozen individuals. 

It seems to be more than a dozen.  

>b) The first point (a) implies it is not of a wide interest.
>c) The discussions gets so detailed that few can follow them. 

**   The most complex part of understanding the mechanism for reducing 
VHF gain in MF/HF amplifiers is seemingly the 
series-to-parallel-equivalent Z-transformation.  This was explained in  
"Calculating Power Dissipation in Parasitic-Suppressor Resistors", March, 
1989 QST, page 7, 'Finding Impedance by Solving for Admittance'. .? The 
American Radio Relay League, Inc.  (available at Figure 18 on my Web 
site).  To someone who does not understand how impedance can be found by 
solving for admittance, the process may seem like voodoo. 

>d) There are a large number of posts on the subject. 

**  Perhaps disinteresting posts should be avoided?

>e) It is like religion. A person believing in X is most unlikely to be
>persuaded to believe in Y. 
>
>Clearly if e-mail would have been available when the first amateur radio
>experiments were performed, there would have only been one mailing list
>- 'amateur-radio'. However, that would be a bit of a disaster now, with
>all the wide interests.  

Good point.
>
>I have several Sun w....... 
>
>Parasitic oscillations has I feel reached the point where the
>discusssions are so detailed, that the detailed arguments should be
>taken to a separate mailing list. There is nothing stopping people
>subscribing to both 'parasitic-osciallations' and 'amps'. There is
>nothing stopping a limited amount of cross-posting to the two mailing
>lists. But detailed discussions should be moved to the
>'parasitic-osciallations' mailing list. 
>
**  Perhaps you need to take this up with the person who is forcing you 
to read posts that you find boring ?
>
cheers, Dave

-  R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K, 
www.vcnet.com/measures.  
end


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