Wed, 13 May 1998 10:00:03 +0000
> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:22:18 -0800
> From: Rich Measures <email@example.com>
For those sick of name calling, skip to the end. There is a technical
point Rich made that plainly indicates he believes the best
suppressor is no suppressor at all.
For those who wonder about honesty, read it all.
> >Do you really think name calling furthers your
> >technical position?
> He asked a question. I gave him my answer.
He asked you why you called me an rauchsnauzer (or
something) instead of keeping the response technical, and you
respond by explaining I am a "lapdog".
Do you believe name calling elevates the technical content of your
> >> . During Phase-I of the grate parasitics debate (which began on the
> >> rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Newsgroup) , when Mr. Rauch refuted standard
> >> AC Circuit Analysis, his supporters did not question him. When he
> >> professed that gold has a second, lower melting point below 1063 deg. C,
> >> ditto.
> >Can you copy, and post that comment? All we have is "your word".
> Can you look in the KN6DV archive?
No I can't, I don't know how.
If you state that someone "said something", you should quote that
person's words exactly as written. Otherwise we have only your
opinion of what was said, and opinions have no technical value.
> >> When Mr. Rauch retroactively promoted an ex-Eimac employee from
> >> Engineer-B to "R+D Engineering Manager", ditto. .
> >Not true Rich. We have been all through that, and I even faxed
> >several interested people a copy of a letter from Varian that
> >confirmed my statement. You refused my offer for a copy.
> Post it on a Web site so that everybody can have a look, Mr. Rauch. . .
> I refused your offer because your statment (sic) about Miklos did not check
> out, and because even a computer-bozo like me knows how to use Adobe
> Pagemaker to create an authentic-looking Eimac document saying that
> Charles Thomas Rauch, Jun. is absolutely, positively, 100% technically
> correct in anything he utters, and that he is hereby recognized as an
> amplifier expert.
Let me see if I have this correct.
Because you can forge official looking documents, and because the
documents I have disagree with your claims that I am a liar, I must
be a liar.
> >Mr. Miklos is also listed in the front of a VHF handbook as an
> >engineering manager for Varian.
> And if the ARRL had bothered to talk to the Personnel Dept. rep at
> Eimac/Varian's Salt Lake City plant, like I did, they would have been
> told that Mr. Joseph Miklos was not an "R+D Engineering Manager" during
> his period of employment there, and that he was an "Engineer-B". .
I see, so it is not only me lying just to discredit you. Buzz Miklos
is also a liar, who falsified his credentials in textbooks just to
It's "interesting", Rich, how anyone who disagrees with you is a
liar.... and how documents that disagree with you are all false.
> If some guy says that O.J. Simpson sliced his wife, does that mean the
> guy is a wife-slicer too?
If one person says another might have done something or be something,
it is only a personal opinion. Personal opinions and name calling
are best left out of technical discussions. Why won't you do
> > N7WS concluded the suppressor you sent him, which was NOT the
> >design you normally sell,
> I did not send Wes a suppressor. I sent him some different alloys of
> nichrome resistance-wire, some Matsushita 100-ohm, <12nH, MOF resistors
> that would dissipate 12w for 1 hour, and a silver-soldering kit. Wes
> built the resistance-wire suppressors. . . We do not sell suppressors.
> We sell materials
Let me correct my mis-statement.
The nichrome suppressor Wes tested was greatly different than the
suppressor you "do not sell" to people.
Why didn't you ask Wes to build a suppressor exactly like the one you
"do not sell", instead of testing a different style suppressor?
Since it was different, why do you misuse the results?
> >was no different than the conventional
> >suppressor at upper VHF but the conventional suppressor was much
> >lower loss at HF.
> According to Wes' data, at 200MHz, the Rp of the copper-wire suppressor
> was 169.5-ohms, and the Rp of the resistance-wire suppressor was
Finally something technical from you!!!
1.) You claim the best suppressor is one with the lowest Rp.
2.) The conventional suppressor has an Rp of 170 ohms, and the
nichrome 104 ohms.
Let's take that further.....
The lowest Rp would occur with a dead short, zero turns and zero
ohms. Rp would be zero.
Following your logic, wouldn't the best suppressor be no suppressor
at all..since Rp would be zero ohms?
> >> Information that does not wash will backfire on its originator.
> >Amen. You would do well to remember that, and be more honest with
> >yourself and others.
> Is it honest to claim that 169-ohms is no different than 103-ohms?
I see, so now Wes is a liar?
> Is it honest for you to stonewall your post of 28 November, 1996?
Stonewall what post? There you go again with impossible to
understand personal innuendo.
Out of that big long post there was only one technical point
you made. I've made my point about your name calling and accusations.
Unless you have something technical, like a response to the Rp issue,
73, Tom W8JI
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com