Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Re\:\s+Poor\s+science\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Re\:\s+Poor\s+science\s*$/: 67 ]

Total 67 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: Carl Clawson" <ws7l@arrl.net (Carl Clawson); Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:00:32 -0800; etc, etc, etc. Non sequitur. I said nothing about Rich's claims. My criticizing his critics doesn't mean that I'm defending him or agreeing with him. He doesn't need my help anyway. I reiterate: It; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00143.html (10,106 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 07:39:53 -0500; Hi Carl, We can't ignore Rich's claims, because he gives them as evidence and he basically supplies the incorrect science that misleads people into thinking any resonance outside the operating freque; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00146.html (11,191 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 06:59:52 -0700; ? Do you have any physics of electricity classes under your belt, Mr. Rauch? ? Are you talking about your assertion that Nichrome's resistance decreases as frequency increases? (sic) ? "proper" by w; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00155.html (9,486 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:04:48 -0500; None at that location. Please copy and repost where I said that. 73, Tom W8JI w8ji@contesting.com -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrativ; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00160.html (8,160 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:14:50 -0800; snip I really question why I am wasting my time with this ... I hope this will be of interst to some ... I am sure Mr. Denial will will just consider it nonsence as he has with most all of Rich's cla; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00165.html (11,496 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: Carl Clawson" <ws7l@arrl.net (Carl Clawson); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:20:52 -0800; ... I'm sorry, but I didn't say that I could do that. I do not know enough about the dynamic behavior of tubes and tube amplifiers. When I learn more maybe I will have something interesting to say a; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00166.html (11,448 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:23:34 -0500; Hi Terry, Most people have names. If you are addressing me, use my name and I will answer. I wouldn't call you Mr. Sucker, and in return I don't expect to be called Mr. Denial. The theory you are sup; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00169.html (12,132 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:23:34 -0500; I asked: Then you can't possibly make the following statement: It isn't bait. All of the "proof" about parasitics stems from claims you can't or won't discuss. Those claims are what flys in the face; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00170.html (10,854 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:09:59 -0700; ? From: w8jitom@aol.com Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Subject: Re: Good source for amplifier tips To: <amps@contesting.com> Date: 24 Nov 1996 03:34:24 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc.; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00173.html (8,860 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: w8ik@arrl.net (Joe Subich, W8IK); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:01:25 -0500; Your anecdote missed two important facts: 1) The amplifier was stable with the top cover on ... you made a change, probably in the plate circuit stray capacitance when you moved the top cover. That; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00176.html (12,226 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:36:26 -0700; ? You appear to have impared reality on this matter, Mr. Rauch. This is seemingly why you will not discuss - or even acknowledge - Your post to rec.radio.amateur.homebrew NG on 28 November, 1996. I; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00181.html (12,209 bytes)
12. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:22:32 -0500; Hi Rich, Nice try at pulling something out of context, but what I said was exactly true. To: <amps@contesting.com> What I said is above is perfectly correct, because we were discussing a conventional; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00186.html (9,283 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:22:32 -0500; First I would have to hear something that indicates it actually had an oscillation Joe, other then a guess. Bingo. A PA that oscillates when the tube is in full cutoff? Not likely, is it? Can it? Ev; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00187.html (12,204 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope); Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 14:25:11 -0800; Tom, See my comments below. Mike, W4EF........... Hi Terry, Most people have names. If you are addressing me, use my name and I will answer. I wouldn't call you Mr. Sucker, and in return I don't expe; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00189.html (12,041 bytes)
15. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: Carl Clawson" <ws7l@arrl.net (Carl Clawson); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:11:26 -0800; more not. Said statement did not pertain specifically to a tube amplifier. It was a statement of general physics, a subject that I _am_ familiar with. I've repeated it twice already and you haven't; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00192.html (11,861 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:48:06 -0800; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0042_01BF86E4.1B9B6EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom....... LOL will the; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00204.html (20,513 bytes)
17. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:52:00 -0800; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF86E4.A71993C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Joe's comments... chang; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00207.html (11,781 bytes)
18. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:57:47 -0800; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0054_01BF86E5.76448CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike wrote ... @ I seem; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00208.html (10,817 bytes)
19. [AMPS] RE: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w8ik@arrl.net (Joe Subich, W8IK); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:39:46 -0500; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0008_01BF8704.78BF86E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It may well have been an oscillatio; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00210.html (13,653 bytes)
20. [AMPS] RE: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:14:41 -0700; [chortle] now there's a new one. When the N. O. cathode bias relay contacts arc, the amplifier is no longer in standby. cheers, Joe. -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00213.html (9,299 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]