[Amps] No parasitic choke question

[Carl]

Jim, ask yourself why: If it was actually a workable solution why havent 
decades of amplifier and tube engineers championed such a thing.

Its nice to dream of an unknown easy way out but it aint gonna happen Im 
afraid.

Carl
KM1H


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Barber" <audioguy at charter.net>
Cc: "amps" <amps at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question


>I was thinking (perhaps in error) that if the parasitic network was
> right at the cathode connection it might be more effective in the case
> where there was imperfect shielding between the goesinna and goesoutta.
> (quite often the practical case)
>
> In any case, I'm interested in moving the parasitic network to the input
> for all the reasons I remember seeing here, plus mechanical stability
> and convenience. For example, my Henry 3KA (2x 3-500Z) needs occasional
> attention to the suppressors to keep it from oscillating. I would love
> to replace the suppressors with silver-plated strap and add a parasitic
> network to the input. It would certainly be more robust mechanically, if
>  nothing else.
>
> 73, Jim N7CXI
>
>
> Bill, W6WRT wrote:
>> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:40:34 -0700, Jim Barber <audioguy at charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting... What about a series low-pass instead right at the
>>> cathode? It would have to handle the drive power, but wouldn't it reduce
>>> the number of potential feedback paths?
>>
>> REPLY:
>>
>> I don't think it would reduce the impedance at the VHF parasitic
>> frequency, if I understand you right.
>>
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amps mailing list
>> Amps at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps