See Below,
--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 3:30 AM, craxd wrote:
Mike,
The kicker is, this un-named moderator said "You have been given a
wide degree of latitude - wider than many others". For what,
offering
technical advice to any who asked for it? They also said "You hang
out
here without any amateur call and no professional credentials
other
than as an admitted former designer and builder of amplifiers for
CB
service". Yup, I sure did build um, and did learn a heck of a lot
while doing it. What is his credentials,
He is one of our "recognized amplifier experts".
- Tom Rauch, W8JI, Nov. 1994 *QST* magazine
I've not had the chance to read that one. What was it about?
call, or name for that
matter? If you remember, Tom asked me what my credentials was, and
where I went to school too. Don't it sound fishy that he would ask
the
same right after?
And he has not yet taken a class in alternating-current circuit
analysis.
Then went on to say, "It is no appropriate for you
to get your back up when you are asked for credentials after
questioning not one but several of the academic standards of tube
design and operation". What academic standard did I ever question?
You questioned Tom's spin on it.
I
quoted authors like Terman. The only one I ever questioned was
Tom,
and showed what he was saying was pure hogwash by quoting
published
authors!
That's his modus operandi.
Then he has the balls to say, "If you are going to question
those academic works,
Translation: Tom's cockamamie spin on it.
you need to be willing disclose your credentials
(if your PhD in Physics or Electrical Engineering?), allow them to
be
examined and provide a list of your peer (academically) reviewed
research work (CV) in the field for examination.".
Sounds like a Smoke screen to me.
I felt the same way!
One doesn't need a
PhD, a Ms, or Bs if they have a knowledge of the theory. Does this
mean that to be an amateur operator, one needs to have these
degrees?
I actually have a degree through Ky. State Vo-Tech, but wasn't
going
to tell him this. Nor, do you have to publish any papers to be
correct. Matter of fact, they've been several PhD's proven dead
wrong!
Then, he goes on to say things about Rich that was to me plain
liable
and slanderous (I'll bet they would be in court),
Try asking W8JI if he ever paid Lon Cottingham, K5JV, the $600 for
the Signal-One parts Lon sold him?
and I won't show
them here.
Please do so.
Since you okay it : )
Quote;
"The thing that gets Rich Measures in trouble is that his
writings HAVE been peer reviewed and been denounced as snake
oil by academics, responsible engineers from every major tube
builder, RF design engineers from many companies ranging from
amateur manufacturers to MRI/ISM amplifier builders and
several major broadcast transmitter manufacturers. Measures'
material has all the earmarks of a "good con" ... just enough
truth to give it a patina of believability to the untrained
and impressionable".
This all over Tom trying to argue that a control grid could
become positive.
It can and definitely does so in a grounded-grid amplifier during
most of the negative half of the driving cycle.
No, If you remember, I did say that that was the only case.
What he was getting at was it could become positive with the
grid disconnected from ground, and if I remember, there was
another way which we both collared him on.
It may be less negative than the cathode, or one
might say it's more positive than the cathode, but it sure can't
be
positive with respect to ground or 0 Vdc!
Ground Is Not the reference point for grid potential, it's the
cathode. Example: If the cathode is neg. 1500v (to ground) and the
grid is neg. 1490v (to ground), the grid potential is positive 10v.
Correct, I'm not saying that and agree, but it is all still
negative with respect to chassis ground or the 0 Vdc point.
It could never be positive in respect to it, especially if
it's tied directlly to it. Remember him saying a grid could
become positive when being bombarded by electrons, especially
if it were disconnected from ground? That was when we were
discussing grid fusing. I think the moderator figured by me
saying Terman meant less negative was me questioning peer
reviewed authors. Though, I quoted Termans exact words saying
"less negative". The thing is, that is what I quoted from the
handbook I have. What Tom quoted wasn't from that handook I
have found, as there was only one edition of it, I looked. It
was from a similar book that Terman wrote which had three
editions with a similar name. I figure now Terman worded it a
little different so as not to come under the same trouble as me
describing it. I still see it as less negative than the cathode
which in reality it is (compared to ground), but by it being
this way, it creates a positive or more positive potential.
Tom though, said the grid could be positive un-connected from
ground, and if I recall, another way besides being driven that
way.
I bet I had 30 e-mails come
back to catch Tom saying this. He would argue until his last
breath it
was positive. All because of something he read, and because he
doesn't
understand theory enough to know better.
Rauch is right on this one, Wil. However, he is not always right.
His Achilles' Heel is that he sees himself as a RF infallible
"expert". Thus, he is the last person you would want for the job of
See above
censor in a discussion about RF Tx amplifiers.
Editorial -- The only kind of discussion that works well is the wide
open kind, where there is no censor-librorum/moderator/
administrator.
It's the only way to get at the root of a matter and find the truth.
What put the icing on the cake for me was when Tom commented on a
post
I made about determining the rms current a transformer needs to
supply
to a FWB cap input supply. Tom replied I was wrong, and that it
was
garbage (No wonder why some Ameritrons are poorly designed). When
I
sent back a reply, with a link to Hammond Transformer website with
the
same formula, the un-named modeartor wouldn't post it (censored
it).
In other words, he was hanging me out to dry to look like a fool
over
not letting Tom be wrong.
That's why Richard George reasoned that Tom was most likely the
unidentified Administrator/censor.
I reasoned the same myself, but still can't prove it. Someone
claimed they knew it wasn't Tom, but I'd like to see proof. If
one is ashamed to, or to scared to show who they are, they don't
need to be a moderator.
Well, that was it, I started by-passing him
with direct e-mails to the members that I had in my address book.
The
rest was, well history. ; )
With Tom, The cardinal sin is neutralizing his control over others.
He sure has his control in this moderator. A lap dog, he for
sure does act.
end
R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org
Best,
Will
