Hi,
I have join the list.Thanks for many friends Invitate me to ham_amplifiers.
Hsu

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Hsu" <Jbenson@...> wrote:

Hi,
I have join the list.Thanks for many friends Invitate me to

ham_amplifiers.

Hsu

### Yes HSU. We were wondering why it took you so long to find
us !! LOL

### You can talk about 811-A's all you want here. And nobody is
going to suggest boycotting Chinese made products, Chinese gov't,
or Chinese radio amateur's either !

Welcome aboard.....
Later.... Jim VE7RF

On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Hsu wrote:

Hi,
I have join the list.Thanks for many friends Invitate me to ham_amplifiers.
Hsu

Welcome to the uncensored amplifier discussion group, Hsu.

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:58 PM, pentalab wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Hsu" <Jbenson@...> wrote:

Hi,
I have join the list.Thanks for many friends Invitate me to

ham_amplifiers.

Hsu

### Yes HSU. We were wondering why it took you so long to find
us !! LOL

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on the AMPS group were somewhat censored.

### You can talk about 811-A's all you want here. And nobody is
going to suggest boycotting Chinese made products, Chinese gov't,
or Chinese radio amateur's either !

Welcome aboard.....
Later.... Jim VE7RF








Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:58 PM, pentalab wrote:

### Yes HSU. We were wondering why it took you so long to find
us !! LOL

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on the
AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several announcements of
this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers group
on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this group
that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS - and it
was, in fact, posted.

Z

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@...>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS - and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3 times
now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it ONLY
got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@...> wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS - and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3 times
now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it ONLY
got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

I wonder if 'Z' is the c.s. administrator of the old amps group on
contesting.com? Har, he really shot himself in the foot. He's now
the administrator of a defunct group. He might as well retire, he
won't have anyone to administrate to now but himself!

Hey 'Z' is your name Tom?

Jer

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@...> wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS - and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3 times
now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it ONLY
got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did, but
the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post that
comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The moderator
aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of us
has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

开云体育

On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Mike Sawyer wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Some of those with good technical knowledge are Tom's pals. My take on Tom is that he attracts people who share a common element in their childhoods. Apparently, the attraction is so strong that a number of the technically enlightened will not comment about statements such as Ni-Cr alloys have reverse skin effect at HF.

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-

I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did, but
the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,

chortle. My guess is that his callsign is W8JI since W8JI knew why I was booted out when no one else did. Also, the posts I wrote that questioned Tom's questionable technical statements were censored like clockwork.

who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post that
comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

Indeed. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, ... ...

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be.

Indeed. However, AMPS was started to protect Tom from what happened on rec.amateur-radio.homebrew in Fall, 1996 - where there was no censor to throttle those who questioned Tom's technical missteps.

Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

The founding fathers of the United States thankfully realized that Censorship is poison.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The moderator
aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of us
has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Moderators/censors/control-freaks dislike being bypassed because it neutralizes their control over others.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40" <zerobeat40@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:49 PM, n6jp wrote:

I wonder if 'Z' is the c.s. administrator of the old amps group on
contesting.com?

Could well be.

Har, he really shot himself in the foot. He's now
the administrator of a defunct group. He might as well retire, he
won't have anyone to administrate to now but himself!

Hey 'Z' is your name Tom?

chortle. The laugher is that the "Administrator" / censor who jackboots folks out of AMPS for not giving a callsign, does not give a callsign himself.

If Tom joins this discussion group, I would definitely not be disappointed.

....

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

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, 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? 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? 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! Then he has the balls to say, "If you are going to question
those academic works, 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.". 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 bee in court), and I wont show
them here. This all over Tom trying to argue that a control grid could
become positive. 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! 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.

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. 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. ; )

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@...>
wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being

banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of
a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own
rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my
feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical
knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-


I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did,

but

the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post

that

comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The

moderator

aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of

us

has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40"

<zerobeat40@>

wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence

on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established

rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on

this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@, www.somis.org

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

end

Best,

Will


--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@...>
wrote:

Will, et al,
I challenged the 'administrator' about what calls for being

banned from the list. Included were email lists and having a 'lack' of
a call sign. Neither one, I pointed out were part of the list's own
rules/regs. But that was another day. I'm about ready to "vote with my
feet." My only regret is that it isolates some very good technical
knowledge that hasn't found its way over here (yet).

Mod-U-Lator,
Mike(y)
W3SLK

----- Original Message -----
From: craxd
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-


I know of several that tried and the post never made it. Two did,

but

the rest went bye bye. The unnamed, "no-callsign either" moderator,
who was on me about showing a callsign, has his eye on every post

that

comes into Amps mainly to protect one person for any, well lets say,
embarrasing moments.

When a groups moderator censors others posts who contradict one that
is plainly wrong, allowing the wrong comment to show, and not the
correct one, it's not a place to be. Correct being that the one
posting it actually knows what they are talking about! : ) It's even
worse when the moderator lets the one in question take pot shots at
others, and when they reply, the post gets canned before the others
can see it.

Now, I admit, I was one of the ones that was guilty of e-mailing
everyone in my address book and bypassing the moderator. The

moderator

aimed that one admonishment about harvesting e-mails at two people,
Rich and myself. However, this moderator must think that neither of

us

has an address book on our own without his so-called "harvesting"
going on. I thought I still have the right, by the 1st amendment, to
e-mail anyone I damn well wish. I'm not aware that has EVER been
changed.

Sincerely,

Will

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:40 PM, zerobeat40 wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "pentalab" <jim.thomson@>
wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., "zerobeat40"

<zerobeat40@>

wrote:

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...>

wrote:

As I understand it, announcements of this group's existence

on

the

AMPS group were somewhat censored.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several

announcements

of

this group, as well as the larger more-established

rfamplifiers

group

on Yahoo that made it to AMPs. Everytime someone posted on

this

group

that "my announcement did not get posted", I looked at AMPS -

and

it

was, in fact, posted.

### DREAM ON. I checked 'amps' on contesting .com 3

times

now.... with a microscope [pulling up their archives]..... it

ONLY

got posted TWICE..... once from Mike... once from Alek

later........Jim VE7RF

Yes, that is the distinct number of people who claimed to have
attempted to post it and claimed that it was not posted.

I heard from others who said they tried to post the info about the
new group and it did not not get past the censor.

Thank you for the corroborration.

Z

Yet another unidentified station.

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@, www.somis.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

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

On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:40 AM, craxd wrote:

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?

Will -- My mistake, it was on p.71 of the September, 1994 issue of QST magazine where Tom writes: "Although VHF and UHF parasitics are undesireable effects. and must be avoided, there is no basis in amplifier tube theory or actual experience to support such conclusions. They are not supported by design theory or the experience of recognized amplifier experts in the RF amplifier design community that include Eimac, Siemens, ETO, Henry, and Ameritron." Since ETO is Dick and Ameritron is Tom, Dick and Tom are "recognized amplifier experts", and this according to a guy who says that Ni-Cr alloys have reverse skin effect and that the conventions of AC circuit analysis do not apply to R/L VHF parasitic suppressors. . . . George Grammar, W1DF, QST Technical Editor during the 1950s. was probably turning over in his grave.
Background: Around September of 1993, I received a letter from QST Technical Topics Column Editor Paul Pagel asking me to write another article for QST about amplifiers. The result was "The Nearly Perfect Amplifier", which appeared in the January, 1994 issue of the magazine. The article outlined things which a perfect or nearly amplifier would have. Examples were step-start to limit inrush-I, T/ R, R/T switching that was Faster than that of transceivers in order to prevent hotswitching, filament-potential adjusting potentiometer to maximize emissive life, lower-Q VHF parasitic oscillation suppressors to improve stability, the use of a grid fusing element, a glitch resistor in the HV+ lead to limit peak-I during an anomaly, and potting the HV transformer to reduce hygroscopic absorbption and improve heat transfer. The article apparently lit the fuse of Tom Rauch, W8JI, (MFJ-Ameritron) and the even shorter fuse of Dick Ehrhorn W0ID (!) (ETO/Alpha), whereupon they apparently began kvetching to the magazine that they should be allowed to write a rebuttal that would be published in Technical Topics. Quite probably since MFJ and ETO were major advertisers in QST, this got QST's attention and QST agreed to publish the rebuttal.
As I see it, publishing the rebuttal was the only fair thing to do. However, to be fair, my reply to the abundance of questionable statements made therein also needed to be aired. The problem was that QST Editor Mark Wilson. AA2Z, refused. As a result, I launched my Web site and published my reply to the rebuttal

so that QST subscribers could see what the QST Editor did not want them to see.

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!

In Deutche, "rauch" means smoke.

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 : )

I relish such things.

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,

Tom Rauch an academician? -- he's never taken a class in the very basis of RF amplifier design -- alternating current circuit analysis.

responsible engineers from every major tube
builder,

The only person from a tube mfg that he got to go along with his dicta was his buddy Reid Brandon, the Eimac Customer Relations guy -- who told QST's Paul Pagel that Eimac's Chief Specifications Engineer, Willis B. Foote was not authorized to tell me that gold-sputtering from the grid was thought to be caused by a UHF oscillation condition.

RF design engineers from many companies ranging from
amateur manufacturers to MRI/ISM amplifier builders and
several major broadcast transmitter manufacturers.

Guffaw. The clue word here is "many" because he fails to list the companies.

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".

Thanks, Will.

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.

With air in the tube, the grid can go positive provided that the anode is sufficiently positive to make the O^2 and N^2 atoms ionize

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 does not matter a whit what the grid-chassis potential is, the only thing that locally effects the emitted electrons is the potential Between the cathode and the grid.

It could never be positive in respect to it, especially if
it's tied directlly to it.

Tying the grid to the cathode is a whole nuther ballgame, Will.

Remember him saying a grid could
become positive when being bombarded by electrons, especially
if it were disconnected from ground?

He's assuming gas ionization between the positive anode and the floating grid. The purpose of Tom's argument is to try and explain bursts of grid-I by a means Other than an intermittent VHF parasitic oscillation. During the parasitics debate, trying to explain why no gas could be found in tubes that had popped their grid fuse, he claimed that gassy tubes can getter themselves on the way to being tested in a high potential tester. -- no fooling.

...

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.
...

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.

A participant in a discussion can not be the censor of the discussion because it would stink even more than fresh feces. .

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.

But he can't control us bailouts.

...

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

From: R L Measures <r@...>
Date: October 4, 2006 11:52:44 AM PDT
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Subject: Re: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-


On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:40 AM, craxd wrote:

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?

Will -- My mistake, it was on p.71 of the September, 1994 issue of QST magazine where Tom writes: "Although VHF and UHF parasitics are undesireable effects. and must be avoided, there is no basis in amplifier tube theory or actual experience to support such conclusions. They are not supported by design theory or the experience of recognized amplifier experts in the RF amplifier design community that include Eimac, Siemens, ETO, Henry, and Ameritron." Since ETO is Dick and Ameritron is Tom, Dick and Tom are "recognized amplifier experts", and this according to a guy who says that Ni-Cr alloys have reverse skin effect and that the conventions of AC circuit analysis do not apply to R/L VHF parasitic suppressors. . . . George Grammar, W1DF, QST Technical Editor during the 1950s. was probably turning over in his grave.
Background: Around September of 1993, I received a letter from QST Technical Topics Column Editor Paul Pagel asking me to write another article for QST about amplifiers. The result was "The Nearly Perfect Amplifier", which appeared in the January, 1994 issue of the magazine. The article outlined things which a perfect or nearly amplifier would have. Examples were step-start to limit inrush-I, T/ R, R/T switching that was Faster than that of transceivers in order to prevent hotswitching, filament-potential adjusting potentiometer to maximize emissive life, lower-Q VHF parasitic oscillation suppressors to improve stability, the use of a grid fusing element, a glitch resistor in the HV+ lead to limit peak-I during an anomaly, and potting the HV transformer to reduce hygroscopic absorbption and improve heat transfer. The article apparently lit the fuse of Tom Rauch, W8JI, (MFJ-Ameritron) and the even shorter fuse of Dick Ehrhorn W0ID (!) (ETO/Alpha), whereupon they apparently began kvetching to the magazine that they should be allowed to write a rebuttal that would be published in Technical Topics. Quite probably since MFJ and ETO were major advertisers in QST, this got QST's attention and QST agreed to publish the rebuttal.
As I see it, publishing the rebuttal was the only fair thing to do. However, to be fair, my reply to the abundance of questionable statements made therein also needed to be aired. The problem was that QST Editor Mark Wilson. AA2Z, refused. As a result, I launched my Web site and published my reply to the rebuttal

so that QST subscribers could see what the QST Editor did not want them to see.

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!

In Deutche, "rauch" means smoke.

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 : )

I relish such things.

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,

Tom Rauch an academician? -- he's never taken a class in the very basis of RF amplifier design -- alternating current circuit analysis.

responsible engineers from every major tube
builder,

The only person from a tube mfg that he got to go along with his dicta was his buddy Reid Brandon, the Eimac Customer Relations guy -- who told QST's Paul Pagel that Eimac's Chief Specifications Engineer, Willis B. Foote was not authorized to tell me that gold-sputtering from the grid was thought to be caused by a UHF oscillation condition.

RF design engineers from many companies ranging from
amateur manufacturers to MRI/ISM amplifier builders and
several major broadcast transmitter manufacturers.

Guffaw. The clue word here is "many" because he fails to list the companies.

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".

Thanks, Will.

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.

With air in the tube, the grid can go positive provided that the anode is sufficiently positive to make the O^2 and N^2 atoms ionize

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 does not matter a whit what the grid-chassis potential is, the only thing that locally effects the emitted electrons is the potential Between the cathode and the grid.

It could never be positive in respect to it, especially if
it's tied directlly to it.

Tying the grid to the cathode is a whole nuther ballgame, Will.

Remember him saying a grid could
become positive when being bombarded by electrons, especially
if it were disconnected from ground?

He's assuming gas ionization between the positive anode and the floating grid. The purpose of Tom's argument is to try and explain bursts of grid-I by a means Other than an intermittent VHF parasitic oscillation. During the parasitics debate, trying to explain why no gas could be found in tubes that had popped their grid fuse, he claimed that gassy tubes can getter themselves on the way to being tested in a high potential tester. -- no fooling.

...

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.
...

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.

A participant in a discussion can not be the censor of the discussion because it would stink even more than fresh feces. .

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.

But he can't control us bailouts.

...

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

--- In ham_amplifiers@..., R L Measures <r@...> wrote:

From: R L Measures <r@...>
Date: October 4, 2006 11:52:44 AM PDT
To: ham_amplifiers@...
Subject: Re: [ham_amplifiers] Re: Hi-

Will -- My mistake, it was on p.71 of the September, 1994 issue of
QST magazine where Tom writes: "Although VHF and UHF parasitics are
undesireable effects. and must be avoided, there is no basis in
amplifier tube theory or actual experience to support such
conclusions. They are not supported by design theory or the
experience of recognized amplifier experts in the RF amplifier

design

community that include Eimac, Siemens, ETO, Henry, and Ameritron."
Since ETO is Dick and Ameritron is Tom, Dick and Tom are

"recognized

amplifier experts", and this according to a guy who says that Ni-Cr
alloys have reverse skin effect and that the conventions of AC
circuit analysis do not apply to R/L VHF parasitic
suppressors. . . . George Grammar, W1DF, QST Technical Editor
during the 1950s. was probably turning over in his grave.
Background: Around September of 1993, I received a letter from
QST Technical Topics Column Editor Paul Pagel asking me to write
another article for QST about amplifiers. The result was "The

Nearly

Perfect Amplifier", which appeared in the January, 1994 issue of the

> magazine. The article outlined things which a perfect or nearly

amplifier would have. Examples were step-start to limit inrush-I,

T/

R, R/T switching that was Faster than that of transceivers in order
to prevent hotswitching, filament-potential adjusting potentiometer
to maximize emissive life, lower-Q VHF parasitic oscillation
suppressors to improve stability, the use of a grid fusing element,

a

glitch resistor in the HV+ lead to limit peak-I during an anomaly,
and potting the HV transformer to reduce hygroscopic absorbption and

> improve heat transfer. The article apparently lit the fuse of Tom

Rauch, W8JI, (MFJ-Ameritron) and the even shorter fuse of Dick
Ehrhorn W0ID (!) (ETO/Alpha), whereupon they apparently began
kvetching to the magazine that they should be allowed to write a
rebuttal that would be published in Technical Topics. Quite

probably

since MFJ and ETO were major advertisers in QST, this got QST's
attention and QST agreed to publish the rebuttal.
As I see it, publishing the rebuttal was the only fair thing to
do. However, to be fair, my reply to the abundance of questionable
statements made therein also needed to be aired. The problem was
that QST Editor Mark Wilson. AA2Z, refused. As a result, I launched
my Web site and published my reply to the rebuttal

so that QST subscribers could see what the QST Editor did not want
them to see.

Since you okay it : )

I relish such things.

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,

Tom Rauch an academician? -- he's never taken a class in the very
basis of RF amplifier design -- alternating current circuit

analysis.




I didn't figure he did by some of the stuff he has said. One can
tell if someone has actually been taught something, or just trying
to quote things they've heard or read from unreliable sources.
I highly doubt he's ever did any actual research either. I know
what that's like as I'm still doing it on transformers and power
supplies. I've been doing it now for about two years straight.
I'm still finding out new things that I hadn't seen in other works.

responsible engineers from every major tube
builder,

The only person from a tube mfg that he got to go along with his
dicta was his buddy Reid Brandon, the Eimac Customer Relations guy -

It would about have to be as i've read the photocopy of your
letter from Eimac.

who told QST's Paul Pagel that Eimac's Chief Specifications

Engineer,

Willis B. Foote was not authorized to tell me that gold-sputtering
from the grid was thought to be caused by a UHF oscillation

condition.




That would be a salesmans tone so as not to make ones think the
tubes were faulty.

RF design engineers from many companies ranging from
amateur manufacturers to MRI/ISM amplifier builders and
several major broadcast transmitter manufacturers.

Guffaw. The clue word here is "many" because he fails to list the
companies.

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".

Thanks, Will.

No problem!

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.

With air in the tube, the grid can go positive provided that the
anode is sufficiently positive to make the O^2 and N^2 atoms ionize

Positive with respect to the cathode you mean? Terman calls
it less negative, see below.

Unconnected the space charge could cause the grid to become
slightly negative or to where equilibrium is achieved between
it and the cathode. The way I read it, the ions cause the space
charge to increase from the cathode toward the grid. In the
Radio Engineers Handbook, 1st edition by Terman, on page 316,
sub-section 13 is listed; "Effect of Gas Upon Tube
Characteristics" which is quoted below;

"Very small traces of gas in vacuum tubes affect the characteristics
adversely in a number of ways as a result of the positive ions
produced in the tube by collision between the gas molocules and the
electrons flowing to the anode. The positive ions travel in the
opposite direction from the electrons, and normally end their
existence by falling into the cathode or negative control
grid. Electrons that bombard the cathode tend to destroy the
emission of thoriated-tungsten and oxide coated cathodes.
Positive ions collected by the negative grid result in grid
current, which limits the resistance that may be inserted in
series with a negative grid, and which also introduces noise.

Positive-ion currents to the grid limit the d-c resistance that may
safely be placed in series with the control grid and the cathode,
because the voltage drop that such a grid current produces across the
resistance has a polarity that makes the grid less negative than
would otherwise be the case. Thus if the tube begins to liberate
gas, with resulting positive-ion grid current, the grid becomes
less negative, thereby increasing the space current. This
increases the number of positive ions produced, and will cause
additional grid current, and still greater reduction in the
negative grid potential. If the resistance in the grid circuit
is high enough, this process can become cumulative, and in some
types of tubes can easilyresult in the destruction of the tube
as a result of excessive plate current caused from loss of grid
bias. The maximum resistance that is permissable to place in
series with the grid electrode depends upon the grid
characteristics and the method of obtaining bias. It is of the
order of several megohms in small tubes used for voltage
amplification at audio and radio frequencies. With small power
tubes, such as the output tubes of radio receivers and public
address systems, the allowable grid resistance is much less,
particularly if a fixed bias is employed in the grid-cathode
circuit, since self-bias provides an automatic protection
against excessive increase in plate current".

End Quote.

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 does not matter a whit what the grid-chassis potential is, the
only thing that locally effects the emitted electrons is the
potential Between the cathode and the grid.

Correct. However, in the way voltage is defined, it has a positive or
negative polarity, and this is measured from ground or 0 Vdc by its
definition. One side of 0 is negative, and on the other side of 0 is
positive. Since the current through the tube is from the B+ supply,
and the chassis ground is generally the B-, then by definition, the
grid is never positive when tied to the chassis or B-. However, I know
to measure this, it is measured between the cathode and grid, not the
ground and grid. That's why I always agree the same as Terman
described it, less negative.

It could never be positive in respect to it, especially if
it's tied directlly to it.

Tying the grid to the cathode is a whole nuther ballgame, Will.

I know this.

Remember him saying a grid could
become positive when being bombarded by electrons, especially
if it were disconnected from ground?

He's assuming gas ionization between the positive anode and the
floating grid. The purpose of Tom's argument is to try and explain
bursts of grid-I by a means Other than an intermittent VHF parasitic

oscillation. During the parasitics debate, trying to explain why no

gas could be found in tubes that had popped their grid fuse, he
claimed that gassy tubes can getter themselves on the way to being
tested in a high potential tester. -- no fooling.

To Toms theory, in the emortal words of John Wayne, "Not hardly".

...

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.

...

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.

A participant in a discussion can not be the censor of the
discussion
because it would stink even more than fresh feces. .

Yes, it has stunk since someone re-appeared on Amps after several
years of absence.

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.

But he can't control us bailouts.

According to this nameless admin, he booted all of us out.

R L Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734
r@..., , rlm@..., www.somis.org

Best,


Will

开云体育