To: <amps@contesting.com>
>Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 13:15:23 -0500
>To: Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>
>From: Phil Clements <philk5pc@connect.net>
>Subject: Re: [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression
>
>At 09:48 AM 5/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
snip....
>
>> IMO, even though Henry's current 8k vhf suppressor design is better that
>>what they originally used, a single-element plated suppressor can NOT
>>provide the stagger-tuning effect that additionally decreases the VHF-Q
>>of the anode-resonance. With a single-element plated suppressor design,
>>the L of Rs is identical to the L of Ls. If a short length of resistive
>>ribbon were connected across the ends of the one-turn Ls, a
>>VHF-Q-decreasing R-increasing VHF stagger-tuning effect would result.
>
>I agree, Rich. This suppressor is not a cure-all for all
tubes/configurations.
>The original suppressor in the Henry 3000D RF generators (13.56 mhz) was just
>a silver plated strap bent into a "U" shape that ran from the plate cap to
the
>plate block cap. This indicates to me that the 3CX3000A7 is a fairly tame
>animal to start with. The chrome/brass unit would never work on internal
anode
>tubes.
>I> Another point: Ch has 2x the volume-resistivity of Ag. .. ...
>>Ni-Ch has 25x the volume-resistivity of Ch. Thus, even through
>>Ch-plating offers a 2x R-improvement over the Ag-plating that Henry
>>originally used, additional R-improvement could be achieved by the
>>switching from Ch to Ni-Ch. Curiously, brass (Cu-Zn) has about 1.7x the
>>volume-R of Ch. Who knows? Maybe the next stage in Henry 8k suppressor
>>enhancements will be to NOT PLATE the brass Ls.
>
>I think Henry just stopped the design at solving the problem at hand, ie. the
>8K-Ultra. It is at least a starting point for others in developing
"resistorless"
>suppressors (no carbon components) for the tubes of the '90's.
>
>> IMO. (and at a considerable risk of creating serious boredom in the
>>naysayer's encampment), adding even a small amount of ESR to Ls is
>>useful. Wes' scientific measurements of 3-500Z suppressors indicated
>that a adding a few ohms of ESR in Ls lowered the VHF-Rp of the DUT from
>166-ohms to 101 ohms...
>
>But alas..Wes blew off the significance of the 65 ohm drop; discounting it
>as "not a dime's worth of difference."
>
snip.....
(((73)))
Phil, K5PC
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|