I was thinking (perhaps in error) that if the parasitic network was
right at the cathode connection it might be more effective in the case
where there was imperfect shielding between the goesinna and goesoutta.
(quite often the practical case)
In any case, I'm interested in moving the parasitic network to the input
for all the reasons I remember seeing here, plus mechanical stability
and convenience. For example, my Henry 3KA (2x 3-500Z) needs occasional
attention to the suppressors to keep it from oscillating. I would love
to replace the suppressors with silver-plated strap and add a parasitic
network to the input. It would certainly be more robust mechanically, if
nothing else.
73, Jim N7CXI
Bill, W6WRT wrote:
> ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:40:34 -0700, Jim Barber <audioguy@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting... What about a series low-pass instead right at the
>> cathode? It would have to handle the drive power, but wouldn't it reduce
>> the number of potential feedback paths?
>
> REPLY:
>
> I don't think it would reduce the impedance at the VHF parasitic
> frequency, if I understand you right.
>
> 73, Bill W6WRT
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|