David -- The acid test is tune up normally, shut down, unplug from the
mains, drink a Beck's or St. Pauli Girl, connect the appropriate
resistors at the in and out of the Pi, and measure the resonant freq
with a dipmeter.
On Feb 23, 2005, at 4:36 PM, David C. Hallam wrote:
> All of this has been "informative", but I had planned to do the
> following
> with the tank circuit of my amplifier under construction:
>
> Replace the tube with a noninductive resistor of a value equal to the
> plate
> load impedance; set the tuning and loading capacitors to the values
> from the
> tank circuit calculations; connect my Rx meter to the output and
> adjust the
> tap position on the coil until the Rx meter reads 50 ohm and j0.
>
> Will this result in anything meaningful?
>
> David C. Hallam
> KC2JD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amps-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of TexasRF@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:42 PM
> To: r@somis.org; amps@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Fwd: Pi-L In-circuit Adjustment Question
>
>
> In a message dated 2/21/2005 4:47:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> r@somis.org
> writes
>
> An L-network transforms E and I by operating near resonance. The
> greater the Z-transformation, the closer it operates to resonance, the
> greater the circulating I in the inductor, the greater the E across the
> capacitor., and the greater the operating Q. However, an L-network is
> never operated dead-on resonance because there would be ° E and ° I.
>
>
> On AMPS, those who joke about AC circuit analysis are destined to
> become one.
>
> Rich,
> This sounds like a truly serious individual. I am too; I like that.
>
> But, comparing well known and documented AC circuit analysis with flat
> earth
> is a little disappointing to those of us who are truly interested in
> gaining
> accurate knowledge of the subject under discussion. This does not
> sound
> like
> a serious individual. Why in the world would you take such a shallow
> position on a serious topic?
>
> I hope you don't feel threatened in some small way by the direction the
> discussion has been going. Few of our group (if any) know everything
> about
> rf
> designing so I expect most of us still have a bit to learn, I know I
> do. I
> also
> know by some of the comments you have made that you can learn as well
> if you
> desire to do that. You have a tremendous amount of very useful
> knowledge to
> share and can make it even more valuable with little effort.
>
> Any of the aspects of rf design we discuss should be able to stand the
> burden of mathematical proof. If it can't, then it is highly suspect.
> A flat
> out
> statement like "no capacitor will resonate a Pi network" is an example
> of a
> suspect statement.
>
> This is the kind of statement that causes a knowledgeable reader to
> think
> "hmmm?" and if in a position to do so, possibly even reject a technical
> paper
> written by the person making the statement. Worse though, is
> disseminating
> false information that will not withstand scientific proof to
> unsuspecting
> readers not in a position to know that it is false.
>
> If a circuit analysis doesn't agree with a practical measurement then
> one
> has to ask: is the analysis flawed or is the practical measurement
> flawed?
> If we
> are using well known and proven mathematics then one can conclude
> that the
> there is probably something wrong with the measurement.
>
> Won't you reconsider your position on this and help us reason through
> and
> understand the true facts of the matter?
>
> If not, then ok, but in the future when you offer technical information
> there will be that "hmmm?", in my mind as well as many others.
>
> 73,
> Gerald/K5GW
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>
>
>
>
Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|