> ----------
> From: Steve Thompson[SMTP:rfamps@ic24.net]
> Sent: 13 August 2000 07:42
> To: Peter Chadwick
> Subject: Suppressor analysis
>
> Peter, I wonder if you might do me a favour? There's something wrong with my
> subscription to amps and it won't accept my postings. Please could you
> forward this for me?
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: measures <2@vc.net>
> >To: Steve Thompson <rfamps@ic24.net>; AMPS <amps@contesting.com>
To: <amps@contesting.com>
> >Date: 07 August 2000 16:45
> >Subject: Re: [AMPS] Suppressors
> >
> >
> >EUR A parasitic suppressor has two current paths whose EMFs are decoupled.
> >Thus, the higher inductance path (L-supp) resonates the anode a bit
> >lower in freq. than does R-supp. The effect is similar to stagger-tuning
> >an IF transformer to reduce Q/increase bandwidth. .
> >
> >
> >I've tried to analyse and visualise this from several directions, and I
> >always end up with the conclusion that your description is wrong. I reckon
> >that you get a single overall effect which is the vector combination of the
> >two paths through the suppressor. I'm wide open to correction here - can
> >anyone else help?
> >
> >One way I looked at it was to apply Rich's analysis to a parallel tuned
> >circuit - if we add another capacitor in parallel, do we get two different
> >resonances, or one which is defined by the combined effect of all the
> >components?
> >
> >The currents coming out of the two paths through the suppressor get added
> >back together and then flow in common through the rest of the circuit -
> >that's a different situation from the coupled tuned circuits in an IFT.
> >
> >To get two independent resonances because of the suppressor, would the
> >electrons need to be clever enough to know if they went through the coil or
> >the resistor?
> >
> >Steve
> >
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|