All of this has been "informative", but I had planned to do the following
with the tank circuit of my amplifier under construction:
Replace the tube with a noninductive resistor of a value equal to the plate
load impedance; set the tuning and loading capacitors to the values from the
tank circuit calculations; connect my Rx meter to the output and adjust the
tap position on the coil until the Rx meter reads 50 ohm and j0.
Will this result in anything meaningful?
David C. Hallam
KC2JD
-----Original Message-----
From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com]On
Behalf Of TexasRF@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:42 PM
To: r@somis.org; amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] Fwd: Pi-L In-circuit Adjustment Question
In a message dated 2/21/2005 4:47:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
r@somis.org
writes
An L-network transforms E and I by operating near resonance. The
greater the Z-transformation, the closer it operates to resonance, the
greater the circulating I in the inductor, the greater the E across the
capacitor., and the greater the operating Q. However, an L-network is
never operated dead-on resonance because there would be ° E and ° I.
On AMPS, those who joke about AC circuit analysis are destined to
become one.
Rich,
This sounds like a truly serious individual. I am too; I like that.
But, comparing well known and documented AC circuit analysis with flat
earth
is a little disappointing to those of us who are truly interested in
gaining
accurate knowledge of the subject under discussion. This does not sound
like
a serious individual. Why in the world would you take such a shallow
position on a serious topic?
I hope you don't feel threatened in some small way by the direction the
discussion has been going. Few of our group (if any) know everything about
rf
designing so I expect most of us still have a bit to learn, I know I do. I
also
know by some of the comments you have made that you can learn as well if you
desire to do that. You have a tremendous amount of very useful knowledge to
share and can make it even more valuable with little effort.
Any of the aspects of rf design we discuss should be able to stand the
burden of mathematical proof. If it can't, then it is highly suspect. A flat
out
statement like "no capacitor will resonate a Pi network" is an example of a
suspect statement.
This is the kind of statement that causes a knowledgeable reader to think
"hmmm?" and if in a position to do so, possibly even reject a technical
paper
written by the person making the statement. Worse though, is disseminating
false information that will not withstand scientific proof to unsuspecting
readers not in a position to know that it is false.
If a circuit analysis doesn't agree with a practical measurement then one
has to ask: is the analysis flawed or is the practical measurement flawed?
If we
are using well known and proven mathematics then one can conclude that the
there is probably something wrong with the measurement.
Won't you reconsider your position on this and help us reason through and
understand the true facts of the matter?
If not, then ok, but in the future when you offer technical information
there will be that "hmmm?", in my mind as well as many others.
73,
Gerald/K5GW
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|