? RE: " RF with a time-varying resistance"; It seems to me that the "time-varying resistance" is with the amplification circuitry, and it is not with the RF output. cheers, Mr. Rauch. - R. L. Measur
I think that's what he's saying, Rich. As the output RF waveform varies over time, the resistance (or a better term is impedance) of the source will vary over time as well. 73, Jon NA9D -- Jon Ogden
Author: Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.com (Ian White, G3SEK)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 13:25:25 +0100
I don't think it's a matter for "correction", but of several equivalent viewpoints. Since they are all analysing the same reality, all of these viewpoints MUST agree. Any one of them can be used to c
Ahh, but Ian, it has been shown that calculation of efficiency using a Thevenin source and calculation of efficiency using a Norton source does not give the same answer. Therefore, since Norton and T
? That which varies is basically E/I (anode-cathode R). Putting the period after RF would make the sentence less problematic. . Mo' words is not always mo' betta. cheers, Jon - R. L. Measures, 805.3
Author: Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.com (Ian White, G3SEK)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:18:40 +0100
I should have said that all alternative viewpoints that are correctly applied - *if* they can be correctly applied at all - must give consistent results. Exactly! Basic circuit theory says that Norto
These theorems can never be used to explain what happens inside a source. That fact is very clear. They can be used to describe the way a source "looks" to a load. That is also well documented and e
I discovered a very apparent reason why this is so. I was cruising through my 1987 ARRL handbook the other day (yes, I have a newer one, but I am more familiar with the old one). In the PA section, i
? Amen. For years and years, the Handbook has advocated putting gaps in HV anode/plate chokes to ameliorate the resonance problem. For years, I thought it was true - however, I am a curious person,
A minor point is that the model with dissipative resistance does work to explain the loading of tuned circuits by the plate resistance in Class A stages - which is why the advantages of pentagrid con
It isn't if I say we can or can't do it that is important. What is important is the MODEL says we can't use the model that way! Say we have a transmission line coming out of a wall and we don't know
Alas...later issues of the Handbook are riddled with errors and theories presented as "gospel." When I came into ham radio in the '50's, the ARRL Handbook was reffered to a "the bible." Not so anymo
/guffaw/ amen to that, Phil. In the 1950s, QST had a Technical Editor with the right stuff -- i. e., George Grammar. In those days the League was "of by and for amateur radio". Now it's "of by and f
Possibly a bit unfair, Rich, since the advertising is what pays the bills. To my mind, the greatest thing abt ARRL is the effort put into defending amateur radio internationally - where it counts. If
/\ When George Grammar was QST's tech editor, he reportedly kept advertisers in line. This seems to have been a major factor in people trusting QST ads. My guess is that if an amplifier being lab-te
No. never heard it before. A bigger laugh is to think the directors of any national society of more than a handful of members (30? 50? 100 max) control it. Been there myself, done that........... 73
Apparently, then, George never saw any intermittent arcing. Cause if he did, every amp on the market would now be of a different construction. QST is still pretty tough on their advertisers. Until re
/\ My guess is that Grammar saw some intermittent VHF parasite-related arcing in the 50s -- except for 813 amplifiers, of course. Actually, such improvements should have taken place soon after ''Par