>Exactamundo.
>This is why the darn Low Q beast is undesireable.
>
>The only problems that a low Q supressor solves that aren't solved
>by the Hi-Q suppressor are:
>
>1)It eliminates the requirement for selecting an L that provides
>the correct phase shift to eliminate the problematic positive
>feedback in a particular amplifier design thereby reducing the
>mental exercise required of the designer who may lack the ability
>to perform the exercise in the first place.
>
>2)It eliminates FUD over the possible failure of the parallel R in
>the High Q suppressor resulting in a new positive feedback situation
>at a different frequency, caused by the introduction of that L in
>the first place.
>
>For these reasons, it's a good product.
>
>However, with careful design derived from an understanding of the
>physics involved in an amplifier, it's an unnecessary tradeoff
>with regard to overall efficiency.
>
>So, all you guys can quit arguing about the damn thing.
>Yes, it works.
>Yes, it solves a problem.
>Yes, the problem can be solved in better ways.
** please describe one of these ways. Thanks.
>....
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734, AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|