>
>This is an excellent example of how you misquote people and
>change the words Rich.
>
most is similar enough to virtually all.
>Thank you!
>
>
>Here, Measures claims I said:
>
>> It happened during the Grate Debate. Mr. Rauch has always maintained that
>> virtually no current passes through suppressor inductors.
>
>Then in the next breath, Measures claims I said:
>
>> through L-supp. Quoting Mr. Rauch: 'In a typical parasitic suppressor,
>> the coil is in parallel with a low-value resistor. This combination is in
>> series with the signal path, usually in the anode circuit between the tube
>> and the plate tuning capacitor. The coil's reactance increases with
>> frequency, and at VHF most of the signal path is through the resistor. It
>> is plainly evident that the dominant component at VHF is the resistor, not
>> the coil. Changing the coil has very little effect on VHF Q." (p.71,
>> Sept. 1994 *QST*.
>
>Measures has a creative reading-skill problem.
>
>The "most" I said changes to "virtually all" when run through the
>"Measures" filter.
>
In the problem you gave me, the current through the coil turned out to be
10% greater than the current through the resistor.
----------
12 January, 1996"
-- (Measures) "IMO, a milestone in this debate was the AC circuit
analysis problem Mr.
Rauch challenged me with:
An 85nH suppressor inductor (Ls) is in parallel with a suppressor
resistor (Rs) of 100 ohms. At 160MHz, relatively how much current flows
in Ls and in Rs. Presumably, Mr. Rauch *presumed* that this problem would
prove that his statement in the 9/94 QST was correct. Mr. Rauch's
statement:
"In a typical parasitic suppressor, the coil is in parallel with a
low-value resistor. This combination is in series with the signal path,
usually in the anode circuit between the tube and the plate tuning
capacitor. The coil's reactance increases with frequency, and at VHF most
of the signal path is through the resistor."
However, when the calculated VHF current in Ls turned out to be about 10%
greater than the calculated VHF current in Rs, in Mr. Rauch's own problem
no less, he quickly dismissed the results for technical reasons that did
not make sense. Apparently "amplifier experts" are unlikely to admit to
making mistakes, and some of them seem to cover their mistakes with
techno-blather" ... ...
--------
>The same is true for the the scientific notation comments. Rich
>gave a formula, I asked how or where he obtained that formula, and
>he accused me of not understating scientific notation.
>
As I recall, scientific notation and algebraic notation were separate
matters.
>It appears the Measure's game is you can't beat the guy on
>technical grounds, change what he says by taking it out of context.
>
......
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
|