Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Re: Parasitics

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Re: Parasitics
From: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
Date: Tue, 19 May 98 16:05:16 -0800
>...........
>>(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

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