>In a message dated 97-05-25 09:16:11 EDT, you write:
>
>> That's right Phil, it is a good idea. Chrome over copper would give
>> even more slope with frequency.
>>
> --snip--
>
>>The best systems minimize loss at HF by INCREASING the slope of
>> resistance change with frequency, and parking maximum suppressor Rp
>> on the undesired frequency.
>
> 73, Tom W8JI
> >>
>
>Am I the only one that caught this Rich...Carl...Phil ??? Am I missing
>something or what...I thought this was the whole point to using nicrome over
>silver plated strap ??
>
>Amazing !!
>Terry - W6TG
----Hardly amazing to me, Terry. Mr. Rauch must have been aware of this
since when he cancelled his 28 November post at the beginning of last
December. This was very likely the denouement of the grate vhf
suppressor debate. However, Mr. Rauch has his (self-recognized) "expert"
title to defend, so he has to move pretty slowly in such matters.
Since his inverted skin-effect and inverted Rp (in the amplification
equation) laid a goose egg, maybe he figured it was high time for a
concession after five months of technoblather, smoke, and mirrors.
However the comment about parking Rp makes no sense to me.
(Mr. Rauch)
>>That's right Phil, it is a good idea. Chrome over copper would give
>>even more slope with frequency."
Verily, and brass would give even more slope than chromium, and
nickle-chromium alloy would give the most slope of all with frequency.
Amazing. Simply amazing, Terry.
Mr. Handy was right afterall.
Rich---
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|