[Amps] Design VS parasitic

[Carl]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242 at yahoo.com>
To: <amps at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic


> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:22:18 -0400, "Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>From K8RI:
>> Wouldn't it be correct to say (paraphrasing): Designing a circuit to
>> prevent parasitic oscillations rather than designing one to deal with
>> the results of one?
>>
>>From K1MH:
>>How do you propose to do that when the tube itself is the source?
>
> REPLY:
>
> Not wanting to state the obvious, but having to anyway......
>
> The tube is only an amplifying device. What it amplifies, and at what 
> frequency,
> are determined partly by the tube characteristics and partly by components
> external to the tube. Since we can't get inside the tube, parasitic 
> suppression
> focused on the external components. Fortunately, with careful design, 
> success is
> assured.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
>

Then give us an example of a parasitic free 3-500Z amp....if you can.

And also please explain why the natural parasitic frequency of a tube as 
determined by math and in a test jig doesnt change, except minimally if at 
all, when in an amplifier circuit.

Methinks this will generate a real song and dance response.....again. Rich 
was a master at this.

Carl
KM1H


_______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps