>
>measures wrote:
>>
>>>The correct unedited conclusions are on N7WS's web page.
>>>
>>
>>Who needs conclusions when we have the numbers Wes measured?
>>
>
>For the benefit of anyone who joined AMPS since the N7WS Incident,
>here's a short run-down.
>
>Wes Stewart, N7WS, tried to help resolve the disagreements about the
>relative virtues of conventional R-L parasitic suppressors and Rich's
>designs using nichrome. He obtained an R-L suppressor from Tom and a
>suppressor from Rich,
? Not quite. I supplied Wes with the materials and he constructed a
suppressor that was similiar to the W8JI suppressor. Both had c. 100nH
and 100-ohms.
> measured the R-X properties of both types on an
>impedance analyser, and published the results.
>
>The AMPS archives show that:
>
>* Wes strongly disagreed with Rich's interpretation of the measurement
>data. To see how Wes himself felt about this, go to his own web page, if
>it's still there - http://www.azstarnet.com/~n7ws
>
>* Rich's own interpretation was based on a total
? (key word)
>misunderstanding about
>what "Rs" means.
? I originally designated the suppressor resistor as Rs. This
apparently confused some people, so now I call it R-supp.
> He had to be taught some pretty basic network theory,
>here on AMPS, before he could interpret the data correctly.
>
Wes measured the Q of the two suppressors at various frequencies. At
100 MHz, the copper-wire (W8JI) suppressor had a Q of 2.2, and the
resistance-wire suppressor had a Q of 1.5. The difference is 46%.
What's to interpret, Ian.?
> ...but evidently that knowledge didn't stick, ......
p.27, March, 1989 *QST* Magazine.
cheers, Ian.
- 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
|