Good news. An article about amplifier construction that can be accomplished
using ordinary tools would be wonderful. Hopefully, those ordinary tools
don't include the ever-evasive grid dip meter. On the other hand, who am I
to complain, what with a laboratory full of RF test equipment at work to
perform tests with. Alas, though, my workplace is not one with high power
capabilities, but we certainly do have the tools to measure components.
Regarding a title for the article, I suspect you'll get plenty of
recommendations. I do hope that you include in the article your most
impressive set of reasons for using a tube with handles. I believe that is
one of your more considered arguments.
The article body itself deserves some consideration. I would recommend
against a genuinely scientific article. You must show some emotion in it,
and you must make it personal. Humor is a good touch, as well. Also people
will assume it is far more authoritative if you use a sesquipedalian style.
The use of a ten dollar word where a one dollar word always impresses. It
also helps to keep the riff-raff from asking stupid questions. For
instance, why should you ever use the word "childish" when the far more
opulent "puerile" is available? One of the best ways to tell that your
article is written well is when many readers are sent scurrying to their
dictionaries. A particularly good substitution is to use "stentorian" when
"loud" would do. The mathematical superiority of ten letters when four
would do is clear to anybody who is not mired in the quicksand of puerility.
And, of course, once you have the reader accustomed to words with the
correct number of letters, you should then immediately begin using
abbreviations. Notice how much more technical HV-RFC sounds than "High
Voltage RF Choke". Or how G-G just flows off of the fingers more
effortlessly than "grounded grid".
Another literary technique worthy of use by authors of grandiose intent is
to use uncommon words to substitute for vulgarity. A stunning example would
be to use the noun "feculence" instead of "shit". One would not want to
offend the sensibilities of nobility!
Finally, the tone of the article must be correct for the audience. As I
said earlier, make it personal. Don't let any opportunity to bring a point
home escape. Notice how "Operating an 8877 at a filament voltage of 5.95V
can only be recommended for those who have more money than brains" has a
more personal touch than "Operating an 8877 at a filament voltage of 5.95V
will result in shortened life and high replacement costs."
Be certain, also, to use words that are clear to the most casual of casual
observers. Notice that "HV-glitch" has a more obvious meaning than "high
voltage arc."
Tying words together with hyphens is called for today. The hyphen had
almost vanished from contemporary prose, and it should be our duty to bring
it back with a vengeance! Phrases like "tune-C" and "VHF-resonant" should
be used in abundance.
Those are just-my c. 1/6-bit's worth of feculent puerility. Oh, dear, the
cosmic-rays are a-coming and I fear a stentorian-glitch is about to cause
bent-filament-helices on my under-construction twin-3-500Z amp with the
nichrome-chassis. I will have to watch-for the dx-cops because they'll no
doubt hang-tie me when my adjacent-channel feculence is heard on the bands!
>From: measures <measures@vcnet.com>
>To: "AMPS" <amps@contesting.com>
>Subject: [AMPS] Another article.
To: <amps@contesting.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:28:41 -0700
>
>
>I am currently attempting to write an article on a method of
>constructing amplifiers that requires no special tools. This
>construction method was used in contructing both of my c. 20db HF
>amplifiers.
>
>Premise:
>There are basically two types of amplifier builders on the third planet
>from the Sun: those who are mostly concerned with appearances, and those
>who are not. Appearance-type builders build to impress. . The other
>type couldn't care less. . What matters is how many peak volts are
>delivered, and whether or not it splatters. . Ease of construction also
>gets high marks. Two preliminary photos are available on my Web site. .
> .
>
>I would appreciate receiving commentary on what you would like to see
>this article contain, as well as a suggested name.
>
>TNX
>
>
>
>- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|