To: <amps@contesting.com>
>> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:22:18 -0800
>> From: Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>
>
>For those sick of name calling, skip to the end. There is a technical
>point Rich made that plainly indicates he believes the best
>suppressor is no suppressor at all.
I could not find such a statement, Mr. Rauch. . . If this was my
position, we would have seen eye-to-eye on your design decision to use no
VHF-suppressor whatsoever in the Ameritron/MFJ AL-1500 -- which was
undoubtedly Not the case.
>
>For those who wonder about honesty, read it all.
>
>> >Do you really think name calling furthers your technical position?
>> >
>> He asked a question. I gave him my answer.
>
>I see.
>
apparently not
>He asked you why you called me an rauchsnauzer (or
>something) instead of keeping the response technical, and you
>respond by explaining I am a "lapdog".
>
It looks like you need to re-read the exchange.
>Do you believe name calling elevates the technical content of your
>posts?
>
>> >> . During Phase-I of the grate parasitics debate (which began on the
>> >> rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Newsgroup) , when Mr. Rauch refuted standard
>> >> AC Circuit Analysis, his supporters did not question him. When he
>> >> professed that gold has a second, lower melting point below 1063 deg. C,
>> >> ditto.
>> >
>> >Can you copy, and post that comment? All we have is "your word".
>> >
>> Can you look in the KN6DV archive?
>
>No I can't, I don't know how.
>
>If you state that someone "said something", you should quote that
>person's words exactly as written. Otherwise we have only your
>opinion of what was said, and opinions have no technical value.
We have Will's archive.
>
>> >> When Mr. Rauch retroactively promoted an ex-Eimac employee from
>> >> Engineer-B to "R+D Engineering Manager", ditto. .
>> >
>> >Not true Rich. We have been all through that, and I even faxed
>> >several interested people a copy of a letter from Varian that
>> >confirmed my statement. You refused my offer for a copy.
>> >
>> Post it on a Web site so that everybody can have a look, Mr. Rauch. . .
>> I refused your offer because your statment (sic) about Miklos did not
check
>> out, and because even a computer-bozo like me knows how to use Adobe
>> Pagemaker to create an authentic-looking Eimac document saying that
>> Charles Thomas Rauch, Jun. is absolutely, positively, 100% technically
>> correct in anything he utters, and that he is hereby recognized as an
>> amplifier expert.
>
>Let me see if I have this correct.
>
>Because you can forge official looking documents, and because the
>documents I have disagree with your claims that I am a liar, I must
>be a liar.
You denied that you sent me the letter threatening to sue me and the ARRL
if my rebuttal to the 9/94 *QST* (pp.71-4) was ever published in *QST*.
>
>> >Mr. Miklos is also listed in the front of a VHF handbook as an
>> >engineering manager for Varian.
>> >
>> And if the ARRL had bothered to talk to the Personnel Dept. rep at
>> Eimac/Varian's Salt Lake City plant, like I did, they would have been
>> told that Mr. Joseph Miklos was not an "R+D Engineering Manager" during
>> his period of employment there, and that he was an "Engineer-B". .
>
>I see, so it is not only me lying just to discredit you. Buzz Miklos
>is also a liar, who falsified his credentials in textbooks just to
>discredit you.
The C.V. info on Miklos that the ARRL published does not agree with the
info provided by his former employer, Eimac-Varian. I have no idea who
furnished the ARRL's with the information they published..
>
>It's "interesting", Rich, how anyone who disagrees with you is a
>liar.... and how documents that disagree with you are all false.
>
hardly
>> If some guy says that O.J. Simpson sliced his wife, does that mean the
>> guy is a wife-slicer too?
>
>If one person says another might have done something or be something,
>it is only a personal opinion.
... not if the proffered story does not check out.
>Personal opinions and name calling
>are best left out of technical discussions.
Have I suggested that anybody's part-time secretary might be licking
more than stamps and envelopes?.
>Why won't you do that?
>
>> > N7WS concluded the suppressor you sent him, which was NOT the
>> >design you normally sell,
>>
>> I did not send Wes a suppressor. I sent him some different alloys of
>> nichrome resistance-wire, some Matsushita 100-ohm, <12nH, MOF resistors
>> that would dissipate 12w for 1 hour, and a silver-soldering kit. Wes
>> built the resistance-wire suppressors. . . We do not sell suppressors.
>> We sell materials
>
>Let me correct my mis-statement.
>
>The nichrome suppressor Wes tested was greatly different than the
>suppressor you "do not sell" to people.
>
We still use the same 100-ohm Matsushita resistor, and the L is about the
same that Wes used, although L is normally adjusted to compensate for
anode supply potential -- i.e., more volts =s less L. He Wound up with
75nH, which is a bit below average.
>Why didn't you ask Wes to build a suppressor exactly like the one you
>"do not sell", instead of testing a different style suppressor?
Wes built the suppressor from the same 3-500Z schematic that went out
with the suppressor retrofit kits. . However, if he had used the same
amount of L that your suppressor used (101nH), instead of the 75nH that
he used in the resistance-wire suppressor, the resistance-wire suppressor
would have exhibited an even lower VHF-Rp.
>
>Since it was different, why do you misuse the results?
I do not understand the question.
>
>> >was no different than the conventional
>> >suppressor at upper VHF but the conventional suppressor was much
>> >lower loss at HF.
>>
>> According to Wes' data, at 200MHz, the Rp of the copper-wire suppressor
>> was 169.5-ohms, and the Rp of the resistance-wire suppressor was
>> 103.7-ohms.
>
>Finally something technical from you!!!
>
>1.) You claim the best suppressor is one with the lowest Rp.
>
>2.) The conventional suppressor has an Rp of 170 ohms, and the
>nichrome 104 ohms.
agreed
>
>Let's take that further.....
>
>The lowest Rp would occur with a dead short, zero turns and zero
>ohms. Rp would be zero.
Wes' "Rp" is not the suppressor shunt resistance.
>
>Following your logic, wouldn't the best suppressor be no suppressor
>at all..since Rp would be zero ohms?
Nope, because as a VHF suppressor's shunt resistance (Rs) increases,
and/or as the suppressor's shunt inductance (Ls) increases, VHF-Rp
decreases. The "gotcha" is that increasing Rs and Ls exponentially
increases the 28MHz dissipation in Rs, so u gotta be careful not to
overdo what seems like a good thing. . More is not always mo' betta.
, . . Rp is the resistive part (horiz. vector) of the Z-equivalent of
the suppressor's Y (admittance). {see p. 27, March, 1989 *QST*, or see
the JPEG version on my Website.}
>
>> >> Information that does not wash will backfire on its originator.
>> >
>> >Amen. You would do well to remember that, and be more honest with
>> >yourself and others.
>> >
>> Is it honest to claim that 169-ohms is no different than 103-ohms?
>
>I see, so now Wes is a liar?
The person who claimed that there was no difference is none other than
you, Mr. Rauch.
>
>> Is it honest for you to stonewall your post of 28 November, 1996?
>
>Stonewall what post?
Your suggestion about calculating the results of using a Ls with 5-ohms
of VHF-ESR. . . Ummm. . . errr. . . what Watergate breakin? . .
>There you go again with impossible to
>understand personal innuendo.
Stonewalling is refusing to discuss an issue. You undoubtedly cancelled
the post in question and refused to discuss why. However, thanks to the
steely will of a guy named Will, the post had already been archived by
the time you apparently ran through the calculations and seemingly
realized the implications. . .
>
>Out of that big long post there was only one technical point
>you made.
...essentially that 5 ohms of VHF-ESR in Ls results in a large difference
in VHF-Rp.
>I've made my point about your name calling and accusations.
>Unless you have something technical, like a response to the Rp issue,
> I'm done.
>
ok
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|