All,
I've read Rich's webpages front to back, and I have also read what Tom has to
say. I try to weigh
each equally when I read what each say. What I do gather though from Rich is
that he does not
deny that dropping the resistor value 35% will get the same result. As a matter
of fact, he totally
agrees with it by what I've read. I think his point is that by using nichrome
wire, one can get by
with a smaller resistor where the wires R is in parallel with the resistor. In
other words, the wire
serves as the coil and a resistor. If I recall, paralleling resistors does
raise the power rating unless
someone has changed something I'm not aware of. I think Rich merely stumbled
upon an idea
published in a text from years ago that used the idea of nichrome and it does
make sense if using
something like a 2 watt resistor. I've replaced a bunch of 2 watt resistors in
copper wire-coil
supressors where they've been hot and damaged. Some were hot enough that they
cracked in the
middle. Since Rich (from what I believe he's saying) agrees with everything Wes
said, I don't think
he's trying to mislead anyone. I just think he has an idea about using nichrome
wire where one can
use a smaller resistor.
I wasn't around when the argument took place, but I've sure heard a lot about
it. I personally do NOT
want in the middle so don't pull me into it. What I can't figure though is why
the manufacturers didn't
try to reduce the R in their parasitic supressors by 35%, or increase the
wattage rating of them? I
personally think that manufacturers do not try to design supressors for each
amp, they merely copy
designs from others before. I also think there's some hams who do the designs
in several companies
that are hot heads when anything they've designed (or copied) are questioned.
That's not good
engineering practice, and is why design flaws are carried on into other
designs. I've personally seen
this myself. I weigh everything I read on the net, using my 23 years of
experience in repair/design,
and my education in electronics to decide what's right or wrong. I also think
this is getting out of hand
and ought to be quashed before a lot of folks have hard feelings with others
over it. It's not woth it to keep
arguing over something as simple as this. There's just no point in it, or is my
opinion on it.
Sincerely,
Will
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/27/06 at 10:55 AM Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>Rich writes:
>
>> > Your statements concerning the tests by N7WS are completely
>> > inaccurate. Your use of his graph without also reproducing
>> > his extensive analysis of the results is completely dishonest
>> > and distorts Wes Stewart's own conclusions.
>>
>> I used Wes' numbers and I let the reader draw their own
>> conclusions. I'm pretty sure that Wes' measurements are
>> accurate because subsequent tests by another tester show
>> a similar difference between a conventional parasitic suppressor
>> and a low-Q parasitic suppressor.
>
>You are presenting data out of context and misrepresenting Wes's
>work. That is intellectually dishonest and no different than
>the journalist or prosecutor who asks, "well Mr. Measures, please
>tell us when you stopped beating your wife."
>
>> > Wes was clear,
>> > there was no substantive difference between the nichrome and
>> > conventional suppressors when the value of load resistor in
>> > the conventional suppressor was reduced by about 35% to more
>> > accurately reflect the true value of the load resistance in
>> > the nichrome suppressor.
>>
>> Thanks for the laugh, Joe. George Orwell* called this doublespeak.
>> * Eric Arthur Blair. 1903-1950, author of "1984".
>
>You should know all about doublespeak - you're the expert.
>
>> > Like patent medicines made of alcohol and opiates that were
>> > in such vogue before the pure food and drug act, your nichrome
>> > suppressors may make their users feel good but they are not a
>> > magic cure for the illness.
>> >
>> > That not one manufacturer of amateur amplifiers uses nichrome
>> > suppressors -
>>
>> guffaw
>
>As usual, when you lack an intelligent argument you make incoherent
>noises.
>
>> > even though the marginal cost is insignificant -
>> > should be a very clear indication that the professionals
>> > consider your "science" to be without merit and your arguments
>> > to be completely lacking in integrity.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, alternating-current circuit analysis is also wrong.
>
>AC circuit analysis also teaches there are an infinite number of
>ways to create a resonant circuit and/or a two terminal network
>within a black box. As Wes Stewart's measurements show, your
>"magic suppressors" can be duplicated by simply adjusting the
>resistor value with conventional construction.
>
>You are a charlatan and a fool ... you have perverted engineering
>science to promote your own snake oil and take advantage of those
>who do not have the background and ability to see through your
>smoke, mirrors and hand waving. Like any competent con man, your
>"story" has just enough to be initially plausible. However, like
>the Nigerian e-mail scam, simple fact checking reveals the hoax.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|