>here are two:
>1. you have stated several times that Rauch does not understand scientific
>notation. this is either a misinterpretation or a lie.
>
>Your call
>
I used scientific notation is a reply. He said he was not familiar with
it. I stopped using it.
>2. you have stated on several occasions that Rauch said AC circuit analysis
>does not apply to suppressors. Misinterpretation or lie?
>
History.
It happened during the Grate Debate. Mr. Rauch has always maintained
that virtually no current passes through suppressor inductors. As I
recall, I calculated current distribution for a 100nH/100-ohm suppressor.
Slightly more than half of the current at the anode resonance passed
through L-supp. Quoting Mr. Rauch:
'In a typical parasitic suppressor, the coil is in parallel with a
low-value resistor. This combination is in series with the signal path,
usually in the anode circuit between the tube and the plate tuning
capacitor. The coil's reactance increases with frequency, and at VHF most
of the signal path is through the resistor. It is plainly evident that
the dominant component at VHF is the resistor, not the coil. Changing the
coil has very little effect on VHF Q." (p.71, Sept. 1994 *QST*. [sic].
During the debate he held to the same position. When I announced that
calculattions showed that more than half of the current passed through
L-supp, Mr. Rauch said that AC circuit analysis is not valid for
suppressors.
cheers, Bill.
- 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
|