>>>>> 2) Never met Ian, but the gut feeling grows that anyone who challenges
>him
>>>>>in the area of network analysis or any fundamental EE stuff has a real
>good
>>>>>chance of losing. Very respectable stuff, Ian - I appreciate it.
>>>
>>>However, adding a bit of X to make one's calculations come out more
>>>favourably, undoubtedly gives one a leg up.
>>
>>The 200 nH is inductance for the anode lines to the blocking cap were a
>>guess by Ian. So the inductance is less. It still doesn't change the
>>mathematical principles. Also, as we have discussed recently, the job of
>>the resistor is not to abosrb oscillations, but supress them. So wether
>>the 100 Ohms is transformed to 1K or 100K by inductances makes no
>>difference. The math still holds.
>>
>I don't think it will hold up on a Z-analyzer.
So Rich, are you saying that textbooks are incorrect? As I thought more
about this, I realized that purely reactive networks do indeed make one
load look like another. For example, we make a 3500 Ohm impedance of a
tube look like 50 Ohms to our antenna. We make an antenna of some
impedance look like 50 Ohms with an LC matching network. Same principle
applies here. I really would like to see your results on a Z analyzer
because if you can prove it wrong, you've just thrown a good part of the
current RF theory out the window.
73,
Jon
KE9NA
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
KE9NA
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
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
|