> Rich said: "I would bypass the high-tech research, cut to the chase,
> and try a lower Rp suppressor". This was in response to a method of
> scientific approach to parasitic oscillation suppression.
>
> I suppose I should not comment on someone else's view, but it seems
> rather sad to reject science and resort to a magic potion.
It is also bad advice.
The lowest Rp suppressor would be a direct short circuit.
So what Rich is saying, in effect, is to not use any suppressor at
all. That would be the lowest possible Rp.
That is the real danger in ignoring how something works, and giving
a canned solution.
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
|