[AMPS] Re:

Rich Measures measures@vc.net
Wed, 13 May 98 11:40:12 -0800

>> Date:          Wed, 13 May 1998 01:22:18 -0800
>> From:          Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>
>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. 

I could not find such a statement, Mr. Rauch.  .  .  If this was my 
position, we would have seen eye-to-eye on your design decision to use no 
VHF-suppressor whatsoever in the Ameritron/MFJ AL-1500 -- which was 
undoubtedly Not the case.  
>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.  
>I see.
apparently not

>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".
It looks like you need to re-read the exchange.  

>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.

We have Will's archive.  
>> >>  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 
>> 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.

You denied that you sent me the letter threatening to sue me and the ARRL 
if my rebuttal to the 9/94 *QST* (pp.71-4) was ever published in *QST*.  
>> >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 
>discredit you.

The C.V. info on Miklos that the ARRL published does not agree with the 
info provided by his former employer, Eimac-Varian.  I have no idea who 
furnished the ARRL's with the information they published..  
>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. 

... not if the proffered story does not check out.  

>Personal opinions and name calling 
>are best left out of technical discussions. 

Have I suggested that anybody's  part-time secretary might be licking 
more than stamps and envelopes?.  

>Why won't you do that?
>> > 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. 
We still use the same 100-ohm Matsushita resistor, and the L is about the 
same that Wes used, although L is normally adjusted to compensate for 
anode supply potential  -- i.e., more volts =s less L.  He Wound up with 
75nH, which is a bit below average.  

>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?

Wes built the suppressor from the same 3-500Z schematic that went out 
with the suppressor retrofit kits.  .  However, if he had used the same 
amount of L that your suppressor used (101nH), instead of the 75nH that 
he used in the resistance-wire suppressor, the resistance-wire suppressor 
would have exhibited an even lower VHF-Rp.  
>Since it was different, why do you misuse the results? 

I do not understand the question.  
>> >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 
>> 103.7-ohms.  
>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. 

 Wes' "Rp" is not the suppressor shunt resistance.  
>Following your logic, wouldn't the best suppressor be no suppressor 
>at all..since Rp would be zero ohms?   

Nope, because as a VHF suppressor's shunt resistance (Rs) increases, 
and/or as the suppressor's shunt inductance (Ls) increases,  VHF-Rp 
decreases.  The "gotcha" is that increasing Rs and Ls exponentially 
increases the 28MHz dissipation in Rs, so u gotta be careful not to 
overdo what seems like a good thing. .  More is not always mo' betta.  
, .  .  Rp is the resistive part (horiz. vector) of the Z-equivalent of 
the suppressor's Y (admittance).  {see p. 27, March, 1989 *QST*, or see 
the JPEG version on my Website.}  
>> >> 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?

The person who claimed that there was no difference is none other than 
you, Mr. Rauch.  
>> Is it honest for you to stonewall your post of 28 November, 1996?  
>Stonewall what post? 

Your suggestion about calculating the results of using a Ls with 5-ohms 
of VHF-ESR.  .  .  Ummm. .  . errr. . .  what Watergate breakin?  .  .  

>There you go again with impossible to 
>understand personal innuendo. 

Stonewalling is refusing to discuss an issue.  You undoubtedly cancelled 
the post in question and refused to discuss why.  However, thanks to the 
steely will of a guy named Will, the post had already been archived by 
the time you apparently ran through the calculations and seemingly 
realized the implications.  .  .  
>Out of that big long post there was only one technical point 
>you made. 

...essentially that 5 ohms of VHF-ESR in Ls results in a large difference 
in VHF-Rp.     

>I've made my point about your name calling and accusations. 
>Unless you have something technical, like a response to the Rp issue, 
> I'm done.


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