[AMPS] parasitic suppressors

[Rich Measures]

>At 06:24 PM 12/11/97 EST, you wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 22:03:58 +0000 "Ian White, G3SEK"
>><G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>Rich Measures wrote:
>>>>If the paper is unsigned, receiving a copy of it would 
>>>>not reveal the author.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter which individuals first wrote the bulletin, 
>>>commented
>>>on the draft, authorized its release and so on...  You have to accept
>>>that the statements in the Application Bulletin as published represent
>>>the views of the EIMAC company. 
>>>
>>>You can't try to pick-off and discredit individual EIMAC employees one
>>>by one.

>>A statement that needed to be made Ian.....Thanks.
>>
>>73   CArl   KM1H
>
>
>Huh?   Are you saying that if there is a legitimate reason to question a
>statement that we should suspend our skepticism and accept it at face value
>because it was made on the letterhead of a major tube manufacturer????

Amen, Bob.  In one breath, the naysayers cite Eimac's lengthy production 
of defective 8877s, and in the next breath they say not to question 
statements on Eimac stationary -- even though such statements may not 
have been made by a tube engineer.  
cheers
Rich...

R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K   


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm