>
>
>> It appears that the suppressors that Wes tested are not the same
>> suppressors that Rich provides today. Rich advises that the length of
>> wire in today's supressors is the same as the length of wire used in the
>> unit Wes tested. But the one Wes tested was wound about a resistor,
>> whereas "today's" suppressors apparently are hairpins.
>
>Wes' goal was to prove if nichrome made the suppressor better at
>VHF. He measurements show it does not,
Is higher VHF Q better? Does more VHF gain provide better VHF stability?
>but then that's what
>anyone who understands parallel R/L circuits would already know.
>
>If you look at the page where Wes graphs the results,
? why does Wes use a logarithmic scale?
>the bottom
>sentence concludes that a simple slight re-adjustment in resistor
>value would make the two suppressors be IDENTICAL at VHF.
>..........
This is quite true. However, for optimal stagger-tuning effect,
increasing L-supp is virtually manditory if R-supp is increased. By
doing this, the VHF-Q of a copper-wire suppressor can be made lower than
the resistance-wire suppressor that Wes measured What Wes' does not
discuss is what happens to the dissipation in R-supp if such measures are
applied. (for article on suppressor resistor dissipation, see April,
1989 QST magazine.)
cheers
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|