Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather
From: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:14:58 -0700
>
>
>> 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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>