Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] parasitic oscillation techniques

To: <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>, <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] parasitic oscillation techniques
From: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:43:41 -0400
List-post: <amps@contesting.com">mailto:amps@contesting.com>
It is very simple, I was off by a year. Make that 21 years. If you are such 
a fan Id expect you to know the year and month

Its not an article I keep under my pillow for reference.

As to why?  I'll repeat for the last time. If you are really that interested 
then call Eimac. I didnt ask and it wasnt offered.

Ive personally never claimed a damage potential and simply dispute his 
parasitics theory as the cause of every bang event in a SB-220 in 
particular. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Carl
KM1H



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] parasitic oscillation techniques


> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:04:20 -0400, "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>My conversation was about 22 years ago. Thats how long the voodo science
>>parasitic farce has been going on.
>
> REPLY:
>
> 22 years ago was years before Rich began his crusade about nichrome 
> parasitic
> suppressors. Please explain how that Eimac engineer could have blamed Rich 
> for
> such wholesale destruction of 8877's long before any of Rich's articles 
> appeared
> in QST.
>
> And while you're at it, please explain how any of Rich's mods could damage 
> a
> tube in the first place. That's what I really want to hear.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>