[AMPS] parasitic suppressors

[Phil Clements]

>>>>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.

I also think that one can safely assume that Eimac determined by TEST,
not a paper assumption based on other unrelated tube specs
that a 50 volt >5 Joule arc in a 3-500Z or 8877 will cause permanent
damage to the small wires in the grid and cathode elements. Naysayers
should run about 10 Joules at 50 volts through one on their tubes and
report back. Warning: Eimac's warranty does not cover fault related
failures either by accident or on purpose!
>>>>
>>>>You can't try to pick-off and discredit individual EIMAC employees one
>>>>by one.

I am sure Ian is correct...probably someone did the test and wrote their
findings. It was forwarded to a technical staff, who wrote a report in
"engineerese" and forwarded it to a technical writer who translated it
into layman's terms that we can understand. No one in the chain of
events deserves full credit for the final draft of the paper, as no
one person was talented enough to do it all himself. In addition, if
I was paying the salaries for all these folks, the paper would be
signed by EIMAC, who funded the project, and it was.

I think we can assume that Eimac, like all companies, has bad employees
and good employees. I hesitate to think that they have many dumb employees.
At least they are not dumb enough to appear on the reflector to be burned
at the stake. This is a shame. We students could benefit greatly by their
presence. There are a lot of pioneers out there from Eimac, Collins, etal
who read this reflector regularly but dare not respond...too bad, we all
need the benefit of their experiences. They have "been there, done that,
and have the T shirt!"

>>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.  

I have found that it is prudent to question EVERY statement one reads,
regardless of its source. There are too many "used car salesmen" in our
industry these days....

(((73)))
Phil, K5PC

--
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