>...........
>>(Mr Rauch)
>>I've said all along the nichrome suppressor can do the same thing
>>as any other system, if you don't care about HF losses. Where
>>people are being misled is in the "my way or no way" view,
You apparently missed my post where I showed that a 200nH/200-ohm
suppressor made from copper-wire with essentially zero ESR, outperformed
either of the suppressors that Wes measured -- and did so by a wide
margin. The trade-off was 45w of dissipation in Rs at 28MHz. . During
the grate parasitics debate, Messrs. White, Stewart, Rauch, and others
claimed they could design a copper-wire suppressor that would outperform
the resistance-wire suppressor Wes measured. . I encouraged them to do
so, and to calculate the dissipation in Rs at 28MHz, however, they did
not stand and deliver .
>>and especially by claims everyone else in the world, from Dick
>>Erhorn to Buzz Miklos is not only dishonest but technically
>>incompetent.
According to Wes' measurements, hardly.
>
>(Mr. Ogden)
>I wasn't around for the debate and I don't know what names you called
>Rich or he you.
I had some less than favourable comments after I phoned Eimac and
discovered the shenannigan with the CV.
>All I know is what I hear people say. I will pass
>judgement on you based on what I see you say technically not on hearsay.
Like the theory that the loss of Ni-Cr resistance-wire Increases as
frequency Decreases [sic], while the loss of copper-wire decreases as
frequency decreases.
>If my conclusions back up other people, so be it. But I appreciate your
>frank discussion. Personally, I don't have a problem with you unless you
>start spouting junk science.
>
ditto
>>Bad theory and abused physics hurts our ability to understand
>>problems, and harmful suggestions hurt our wallets. Name calling,
>>slander, and personal insults do not belong in an educational
>>forum. That is my "beef".
>
>But just calling a theory bad doesn't do the job.
amen
>One needs to scientifically refute it and answer all questions. I see
evasiveness by
>both sides in this thing and lots of red herrings as well. Theories can
>be proved or disproved by scientific methods. Just saying something is
>junk science without a logical, scientific defense is just as bad as
>someone professing a theory without any proof.
>
hear, hear.
>So, no one has really proven to me that Rich Measures' theories are
>completely wrong. The hard questions I raise aren't answered. And I
>question both you and he to answer scientifically in order to get some
>kind of truth. Not opinion, but truth. If you think something is
>harmful, why? If you think a theory is wrong, then why and explain your
>theory scientifically as an alternative.
>
>That's what I'd like to see.
>
The irony in all of this is that Messrs. Rauch, White, Stewart, on and
on, were quite right in saying that one could design a VHF parasitic
suppressor using a virtually lossless Ls that would equal or outperform a
resistance-wire suppressor. However, they seemingly failed to realize
the trade-off. . . . 'Tis all much adoo about nothing more than a 45%
or so advantage.
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures
--
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
|