>
>> >The correct unedited conclusions are on N7WS's web page.
>> >
>>
>> Who needs conclusions when we have the numbers Wes measured?
>
>
>Because it is better if neither you or I edit the conclusions of an
>independent observer, or change the data.
>
? Independent observor.? Wes' was pretty clearly in the Rauchian camp
before the measurements. Technically, Wes was on solid ground. He
realized that by increasing L-supp, the Q of a copper-wire suppressor
could be decreased enough to equal the naturally lower Q of a
resistance-wire suppressor. The thing he appently did not figure on is
increased dissipative burden in R-supp on 29MHz. The bottom-line on
resistance-wire suppressors is that they mainly reduce the dissipative
burden in R-supp. During the Grate Debate, I repeatedly asked Tom and Wes
to calculate the relative dissipation of R-supp when L-supp is increased.
Nacherally, they stonewalled me.
>The conclusions are best read from the N7WS web page, since he
>did the analysis.
>
>(Those conclusions find there is no VHF advantage in using
>nichrome, but it does reduce Q more as frequency is reduced.)
Wes' measurements show that there is a 40 something percent reduction in
VHF Q at 100MHz by using a resistance-wire Lsupp. . Does Mr. Rauch have
a reality problem?
Congrats, Wes.
end
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|