Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Re: Poor science

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Re: Poor science
From: Carl Clawson" <ws7l@arrl.net (Carl Clawson)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:31:30 -0800
> (Ian G3SEK)
> I liked your analogy of the motorbike engine - .

I have my moments.

> The tube being in "standby" bias is a problem, of course, but I wonder
> if the bias actually reduces the gain of the tube below 1?

Interesting thought.

> Pathological behavior of vacuum tubes may be a different matter, but if
> you suggest non-linear or chaotic behavior, you also have some
> responsibility to explain *how* that might be so. Otherwise you turn the
> whole subject area into a happy hunting ground for bad science - which I
> know is the exact opposite of what you intended to do!

Agreed. I don't actually claim that chaos has anything to do with the
problem. (I get carried away when I'm having fun.) And I freely admit that I
have limited knowledge of tube dynamics, which limits my ability to make a
constructive case in favor of weirdness. I have been reacting mainly to the
sweeping assertions of stability that I've read by pointing out how hard it
is to be really *sure*. Maybe I'm just too old to be sure about anything!

Well, I'm pretty sure the sun will come up tomorrow. The best statistical
evidence to date gives odds of about 10^12 to 1.

Thank you for the lengthy and thoughtful summary, Ian. It had far better SNR
than most discussions in this group!

73, Carl WS7L






--
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


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