>
?? Warning: around 10% of this post is about amplifier theory. The
rest is pretty much of a personal nature that explains what has been
going on here for the last couple of years. If you are offended by
personal stuff, please stop reading here. thanks.
>Hash: SHA1
>
? Hash is an illegal drug, Hans.
>It's typical of Americans to be obnoxious and self-righteous.
It's typical of Wikings to over imbibe and raise Hell -- Way better than
even Americans. It is widely known that Americans are about 4.5 db short
of Wikings when it comes to imbibing. .
>Most of them
>are from the younger generation. And, they are cowards. It's easy to insult
>someone when someone is hiding behind a keyboard several hundred miles
>away.
Insulting usually indicates that a person is losing.
>I think I started this flame war but that wasn't my intent. I just
>thought that it was humorous that someone with a juno address had "nospam"
>in it. Some people saw that as an opportunity to flame someone. I'm sorry
>that I brought that subject up, now.
Don't be sorry. I thought it was delightful. Congrats.
>
>At 11:33 PM 2/10/00 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Gosh Rich. What has your personal life to do with technical discussions on
>a net aimed at amps lovers?
Not much. Why read stuff you don't enjoy, Hans? Do you enjoy kvetching
about stuff you just hate to read?
The personal element was retty much started by *QST* Magazine. In the
Fall of 1994, the League wrote me a letter to see if I would or could
write another QST article. I had another article in my head, so I phoned
Paul Pagel and outlined what I had in mind. Paul said to send him a
manuscript. I did this. The QST Staff accepted it for publication.
"The Nearly Perfect Amplifier" was published in January, 1994. My guess
is that two major QST advertisers got plenty pissed:. Ameritron/MFJ
(Charles Thomas Rauch, Jr.) and Dick Ehrhorn. On page 72 in the
September, 1994 issue, QST published a Technical Topics column that Paul
Pagel had nothing to do with. The Nearly Perfect Amplifier was critiqued
by six people. In this critique, Mr. Rauch managed to put himself on his
list of recognized amplifier "experts". Rauch also made the following
statement as to why there was essentially no difference between a
copper-wire L-supp and a resistance-wire L-supp.
. "The coil's reactance increases with frequency, and at VHF most of the
signal path is through the resistor. " (Mr. Rauch, p.72 9/94 QST) In
fact, in typical suppressors, at the anode-resonant freq, there are
pretty much equal currents in L-supp and R-supp . .
In the October, 1994 issue, Ameritron/MFJ had over 30 full pages of
advertisements in QST.
>What are your motives behind all your
>intellectual quarrels that you love so much?
>
My pet peeve is wannabe famous guys who propagate bum dope, old wives'
tales, and other feculence. . . .
>By the way, I would like to know the background of this amps reflector. Who
>started it? Why? Who takes care of it?
Bill Fisher is the owner. In the beginning, he groused a bit about my
crocodillian debating procedures..
> I am a newcomer to this reflector and
>I understand there is a lot that we babies with our red cheeks and blue eyes
>ought to know. What is the background behind those aggresive messages? What
>has happened in the past?
What went on here started on a Usenet Newsgroup. It began with an
e-mail from a friend who said that Rauch was on the
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew NG saying a lot of negative things about me
and my simply-awful QST articles. . I subscribed, read what Rauch had
been saying, and a debate ensued. Fortunately, I received some valuable
tips from a ham in New York City named John Ferebee who informed me about
Rauch & groupies' Internet debating techniques.
The debate was a handfull. Rauch's groupies were a pretty effective
time-sapper. After only about a month, the denouement suddenly appeared
out of nowhere. , Rauch proposed a mathematical problem (involving AC
Circuit Analysis) which Disproved his case. Even though he promptly
cancelled this post, Will , K6NDV had already archived the post, so it
was too late to save Rauch's bacon. . // Congrats to Will for having
the foresight to maintain the archive. Will's insightful archive proved
to be the key to chopping down Rauch's tree. // . I retrieved the
post from Will's archive, worked Rauch's proposed problem and posted the
misfortunate results. Rauch stonewalled me a half-dozen times, never
even acknowledging that he had posted it. .It was time to light up a
Monica Corona cigar. Things went downhill rapidly when Wes posted his
infamous measurements demonstrating that resistance-wire suppressors
have c. a 41% advantage in VHF-Q. . . Shortly thereafter, Rauch changed
the name he was using on the NG from Tom to Charles and vanished.
Eventually, I received a tip from one of Rauch's one-time friends that he
was up to his old tricks on AMPS. I showed up and war broke out. True,
a lot of guys hated the warring - but is was never boring.
Who could have guessed that there is an Excellent reason to archive a
Usenet debate?.
>
cheers, Hans
- 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
|