> Dave- pardon interjection, but, as an old modeler (of Physical systems,
> in the rocket business) I want to make an observation- The systems to be
> modelled MAY NOT BE SUBJECTED TO VHF OR UHF PARASITICS at all. That is yet
> to be proven. All the modeling in the world will never convince Rich that
> there is no parasitic. All the modeling in the world will not convince Tom
> that there is.
I've never said there CAN'T be parasitics, please don't put words
into my mouth.
I've said VHF parasitics on the frequencies Rich speculates can't cause the
damage he claims.
Parasitics certainly can and do occur in the real world, they just
don't happen in the way or generally do the types of damage Rich
reports.
> In only one case will there be a partial resolution- if someone they both
> respect puts instrumentation in an amp, and does measure a parasitic
> acompanied by the failure mode they both see, then will there be a basis
> for rational continuation of this.
You don't have to have an oscillation to prove a parasitic can or
can't cause damage. You can measure the impedances in the tank
and PROVE a VHF parasitic can't cause the problems attributed to
the parasitic.
I've done that.
> In other words- in this case- you cant win, and you cant even break even.
> I believe in modeling, but that is not the answer here. After all, good
> modeling depends on logic, not emotion.
I've made the impedance measurements, and in prototyping I've
seen plenty of oscillations over the years. I've yet to see a parasitic
it common in production amplifiers, and I can prove they can't do
much or nearly all of the damage claimed.
Because I disagree with Measures and his pathological science,
does not mean I have a mindset. I firmly believe in valid
measurements and conventional circuit theory.
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|