R L Measures wrote:
> > N7WS made independent measurements of this.
>
> N7WS, Wes, was the man who single handedly ended the grate
> parasitics debate between Tom and me by measuring the Q and
> parallel-equivalent R (Rp) of a conventional parasitic suppressor
> and that of a low VHF-Q parasitic suppressor -- And publishing
> the results without first consulting with Tom. The results:
> http://www.somis.org/Rp-comp.html
Rich,
Your statements concerning the tests by N7WS are completely
inaccurate. Your use of his graph without also reproducing
his extensive analysis of the results is completely dishonest
and distorts Wes Stewart's own conclusions. Wes was clear,
there was no substantive difference between the nichrome and
conventional suppressors when the value of load resistor in
the conventional suppressor was reduced by about 35% to more
accurately reflect the true value of the load resistance in
the nichrome suppressor.
The same conclusions have been reached by several other regular
readers of this list and been confirmed by engineers from three
amplifier manufacturers and two different tube manufacturers.
The only difference between your nichrome suppressor and a
conventional suppressor with the lower value swamping resistor
is that the conventional suppressor shows LOWER LOSS on 10 Meters.
Like patent medicines made of alcohol and opiates that were
in such vogue before the pure food and drug act, your nichrome
suppressors may make their users feel good but they are not a
magic cure for the illness.
That not one manufacturer of amateur amplifiers uses nichrome
suppressors - even though the marginal cost is insignificant -
should be a very clear indication that the professionals
consider your "science" to be without merit and your arguments
to be completely lacking in integrity.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|