Joe,
Maybe you could tell us where we could read the rest of the story?
73
Gary K4FMX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:42 AM
> To: AMPS@CONTESTING.COM
> Subject: Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag
>
>
>
> R L Measures wrote:
>
> > > N7WS made independent measurements of this.
> >
> > N7WS, Wes, was the man who single handedly ended the grate
> > parasitics debate between Tom and me by measuring the Q and
> > parallel-equivalent R (Rp) of a conventional parasitic suppressor
> > and that of a low VHF-Q parasitic suppressor -- And publishing
> > the results without first consulting with Tom. The results:
> > http://www.somis.org/Rp-comp.html
>
> Rich,
>
> 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. 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.
>
> The same conclusions have been reached by several other regular
> readers of this list and been confirmed by engineers from three
> amplifier manufacturers and two different tube manufacturers.
> The only difference between your nichrome suppressor and a
> conventional suppressor with the lower value swamping resistor
> is that the conventional suppressor shows LOWER LOSS on 10 Meters.
>
> 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 - 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.
>
> 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
|