Tom Rauch wrote:
>> Rp is different from the R of the supressor
>> resistor. Did you not just read Ian's notes?
>
>No, I deleted most of the messages that built up over three days.
>Ian almost never needs checked. By the way, it would be better if we
>avoided jargon like Rp. Rp means different things in different
>applications, and use of excessive jargon can confuse everyone.
>
I mean the same as the textbooks mean, and the same as Wes Stewart
meant, namely: when the whole network is considered as a single
equivalent resistance and a single equivalent reactance in parallel,
then that resistance is Rp and that reactance is Xp.
Likewise when the whole network is considered as a single equivalent
resistance and a single equivalent reactance in series, then
that resistance is Rs and that reactance is Xs.
I've been trying to build a consensus around those standard textbook
definitions, and posted a lot of worked examples. They show how Rp and
Rs are transformed from one to t'other, the surprising (but true)
effects of series inductance, and how N7WS's tables can be explained
without any "unusual" definitions of R-anything.
One of the postings showed how Rp in the suppressor (about 100 ohms) is
transformed by the series stray inductance in the tank circuit, into an
Rp across the tube on the order of 1K at VHF... all depending on the
actual parameter values.
It's a pity all this coincided with Dayton, Tom - we'd welcome you
aboard the consensus (but most of all, we'd welcome Rich :-)
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
|