Rich said:
"5) My position: Trying to squeeze out the last watt at 29MHz is probably
not going to do much for reducing VHF gain. History tells those who will
listen that betting against Mr. Murphy is
neither likely to be good engineering practice or likely to be profitable."
Rich, you have been arguing that your suppressors are a little bit more
lossy at 29 mHz and that this is proof that they are better than stock
parasitic suppressors at suppressing parasitics that may be occurring at 100
to 200 mHz. In fact, the parasitic oscillation rarely occurs at 29 mHz, so
the argument does not carry weight. Your position seems to be that since
nichrome is lossy at all frequencies, it must necessarily be better at
suppressing parasitics at vhf. This may miss the point. Parasitics may
occur over a small range of frequencies. If the designer carefully designs
a parasitic suppressor that is custom designed for that amplifier, that will
solve the parasitic problem. While the use of nichrome in a parasitic
suppressor may solve the problem, it also may be considered a shotgun
approach. There is no black magic surrounding nichrome. It may have been
an excellent solution in 1936, when it was suggested, because we did not
have adequate test equipment to scientifically analyze parasitics and
amplifier layout.
Colin K7FM
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03
|