Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Internet Bully {ARCING MORE}

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Internet Bully {ARCING MORE}
From: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 20:29:18 -0800
>Dick,
>
>Hear, hear!  Good response!
>
>>  I've watched this reflector for some time in silence but now find a
>>question that seems to need to be asked....
>>
>>   What is it about amplifier parasitics that is so foreign to so many
>>experienced amplifier people here?  
>
>Parasitics are tough to trace and not easily seen.
>>
>>   I think Rich Measures is to be commended for his extensive
>>investigative work into this phenomena whether or not he is totally
>>correct in every aspect of VHF parasitics.
>
>The biggest thing Rich does is start discussions.  I am studying Rich's 
>theories and while I can't say that I totally agree with him, I can't say 
>that his ideas are without merit either.  The fields of science and 
>technology only move forward due to debate.  Aristotle and Ptolemy had 
>incorrect ideas about the revolution of the planets around the sun 
>(earth-centered universe).  However, we don't deny that these men were 
>great philosophers and scientists for their days.  Galileo was called a 
>sorcerer, yet today we owe a lot to his "sorcery."
>
>The Ludites in England threw their shoes into the automation machinery 
>during the industrial era.  The Ludites today are those people who refuse 
>to look at any other viewpoint just because "this is the way we have 
>always done it this way before."  In my days in engineering I have seen 
>many "Ludites."  And I am not talking just the ham radio crowd either.
>
>So Rich may not be completely correct.  Big deal.  But I bet no one's 
>amplifier has been destroyed by his supressors.  The first person that 
>told me about Rich said that his supressors tamed his untamable amp. 
>
>To lambast someone's theories without having a theory of your own is just 
>ad-hominem attacks.  To say something doesn't work just because you 
>"don't think so."  Is not disproof of a theory.  So far, I only see Rich 
>putting forth any new ideas in the parasitic field.  

-  As it turned out, my ideas were not new.  F. E. Handy wrote about 
something similar in 1926.  An article written in the 1930s is being sent 
to me by Mr. John Ferebee.  More on that later.  
-  RE:  ad hominems:  After they had seemingly run out of scietific ammo, 
the grate parasitics debate pretty much concluded after Messrs. Stewart 
and Rauch made sexual innuendoes about my part-time secretary, Monica.  . 
 .  (name changed to protect the innocent).  ......

cheers
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

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