[Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

R L Measures wrote: 

> > N7WS made independent measurements of this.
> 
> N7WS, Wes, was the man who single handedly ended the grate 
> parasitics debate between Tom and me by measuring the Q and 
> parallel-equivalent R (Rp) of a conventional parasitic suppressor 
> and that of a low VHF-Q parasitic suppressor -- And publishing 
> the results without first consulting with Tom. The results:
> http://www.somis.org/Rp-comp.html

Rich, 

Your statements concerning the tests by N7WS are completely 
inaccurate.  Your use of his graph without also reproducing 
his extensive analysis of the results is completely dishonest 
and distorts Wes Stewart's own conclusions.  Wes was clear, 
there was no substantive difference between the nichrome and 
conventional suppressors when the value of load resistor in 
the conventional suppressor was reduced by about 35% to more 
accurately reflect the true value of the load resistance in 
the nichrome suppressor.  

The same conclusions have been reached by several other regular 
readers of this list and been confirmed by engineers from three 
amplifier manufacturers and two different tube manufacturers.  
The only difference between your nichrome suppressor and a 
conventional suppressor with the lower value swamping resistor 
is that the conventional suppressor shows LOWER LOSS on 10 Meters.  

Like patent medicines made of alcohol and opiates that were 
in such vogue before the pure food and drug act, your nichrome 
suppressors may make their users feel good but they are not a 
magic cure for the illness. 

That not one manufacturer of amateur amplifiers uses nichrome  
suppressors - even though the marginal cost is insignificant -
should be a very clear indication that the professionals 
consider your "science" to be without merit and your arguments 
to be completely lacking in integrity. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV