Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] parasitic suppressors

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] parasitic suppressors
From: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:49:02 +0000
Bob Marston wrote:
>
>Huh?   Are you saying that if there is a legitimate reason to question a
>statement that we should suspend our skepticism and accept it at face value
>because it was made on the letterhead of a major tube manufacturer????
>

No, of course not - for example, I argue strongly against EIMAC's
recommendations for "linear" operating condx for the 4CX250R.
But if the company disgrees with me, I don't try to isolate individual
engineers within the company, or try to discredit their personal
qualifications and competence. 

Those tactics are repugnant. They are also directly responsible for
depriving this reflector of public contributions from EIMAC engineers -
as one of them has told me by private e-mail.


73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
                           http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek

--
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>