>
>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.
no dipmeter
>.......
>Regarding a title for the article, I suspect you'll get plenty of
>recommendations.
? Ugly Amplfiers Made Simple. Unimpressive Amplifiers. Grunge Fashion
Amps.
>I do hope that you include in the article your most
>impressive set of reasons for using a tube with handles.
70w per pound instead of only 30w per pound.
Greatly increased hand comfort.
Way lower cost per watt
heats house way faster
>I believe that is
>one of your more considered arguments.
>
Building smallish amplifiers is booring to the point of snoring.
>The article body itself deserves some consideration. I would recommend
>against a genuinely scientific article.
not even close.
>You must show some emotion in it,
>and you must make it personal. Humor is a good touch, as well.
agreed.
> 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.
Dictionaries are the enemy of the educated. .
>For instance, why should you ever use the word "childish" when the far more
>opulent "puerile" is available?
? "puerile" is different than "childish". Children can and probably
should be childish from time to time. However, only persons over the age
of 18 can be puerile.
> 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.
Stentorian is at least 10db louder than loud. Stentorian means way Way
londer. Stentorian sounds have been known to ignite fires in nearby
tufts of combustable fibers.
> 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".
>
Indeed, indeed.
>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!
? Verily. // Hear ye, hear ye. Please be informed that the word
"shit" is not on The Bill's banned word list.
>
>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."
close enough
>
>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."
- glitch - n.
A false or spurious electronic signal caused by a brief, unwanted surge
of electric power.
Not all glitches involve high potential arcs.
>
>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.
\
hear, hear.
>
>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!
? Rubbish. Most DX cops couldn't care less about interference.
>
cheers, Fred.
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
--
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
|