Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:

It operated a lot better than "Dr." (not so) Slick does.

He makes a comment that no one here builds amps. I present evidence
to the contrary and this is the best he can do.


A bunch of pictures of dubious origin...
Would you care to give us some of your design
notes? Or did you build this one from someone
elses schematic?



I think Garvin Yee ("Dr. Slick") has WALG (Worked All Los Gatos) and
maybe even WAB (Worked All Berkeley). Does that count?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


It certainly does count.

I have also WYM (Worked Yo' Momma!)


Slick

On 21 Jun 2005 23:03:46 -0700, wrote:



Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:

It operated a lot better than "Dr." (not so) Slick does.

He makes a comment that no one here builds amps. I present evidence
to the contrary and this is the best he can do.


What a loser!

A bunch of pictures of dubious origin...

Yes, I'm accustomed to keeping photos around for 30 years of someone
else's work so I can someday pass it off as mine.

Would you care to give us some of your design
notes?

Yes, if I can find them; right after you post some notes and photos of
one of the many amps I'm sure you've built.

Or did you build this one from someone
elses (sic) schematic?

Read the text, Bozo. And then repeat after me: Rho can be greater
than one, rho can be greater than one, rho can be greater than one....

wrote in message
oups.com...


Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:

It operated a lot better than "Dr." (not so) Slick does.

He makes a comment that no one here builds amps. I present evidence
to the contrary and this is the best he can do.


A bunch of pictures of dubious origin...
Would you care to give us some of your design
notes? Or did you build this one from someone
elses schematic?



I think Garvin Yee ("Dr. Slick") has WALG (Worked All Los Gatos) and
maybe even WAB (Worked All Berkeley). Does that count?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


It certainly does count.

I have also WYM (Worked Yo' Momma!)


Slick

Garvin

There is a flaw in your reasoning. In order for somebody to copy an amp, or
whatever, somebody else still had to design and write up the original. In
many cases, you are here talking to that "somebody else".

Tam/WB2TT

Wes Stewart wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 23:03:46 -0700, wrote:



Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:

It operated a lot better than "Dr." (not so) Slick does.

He makes a comment that no one here builds amps. I present evidence
to the contrary and this is the best he can do.


What a loser!

A bunch of pictures of dubious origin...

Yes, I'm accustomed to keeping photos around for 30 years of someone
else's work so I can someday pass it off as mine.

Would you care to give us some of your design
notes?

Yes, if I can find them; right after you post some notes and photos of
one of the many amps I'm sure you've built.


Sound to me like you built this one from someone elses
schematic.



Or did you build this one from someone
elses (sic) schematic?

Read the text, Bozo. And then repeat after me: Rho can be greater
than one, rho can be greater than one, rho can be greater than one....


Repeat after me, Dweeb-head: Only with Return Gain, Only with
Return Gain, Only with Return Gain.....



Slick

wrote:
Wes Stewart wrote:
Read the text, Bozo. And then repeat after me: Rho can be greater
than one, rho can be greater than one, rho can be greater than one....

Repeat after me, Dweeb-head: Only with Return Gain, Only with
Return Gain, Only with Return Gain.....

Now, now, boys, be nice. Both of you can be right if you are not
talking about *power* gain. Since you are discussing VSWR, rho can be
greater than one AND the voltage return gain can be greater than one.
The voltage across a resonant circuit depends upon the 'Q' and can
certainly be higher than the applied incident voltage. For that exact
same reason, Vref can be higher than Vfor. It occurs when the load is
the conjugate of Z0 and Z0 is not purely resistive.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

wrote:
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:

Read the text, Bozo. And then repeat after me: Rho can be greater
than one, rho can be greater than one, rho can be greater than one....

Repeat after me, Dweeb-head: Only with Return Gain, Only with
Return Gain, Only with Return Gain.....


Now, now, boys, be nice. Both of you can be right if you are not
talking about *power* gain. Since you are discussing VSWR, rho can be
greater than one AND the voltage return gain can be greater than one.
The voltage across a resonant circuit depends upon the 'Q' and can
certainly be higher than the applied incident voltage. For that exact
same reason, Vref can be higher than Vfor. It occurs when the load is
the conjugate of Z0 and Z0 is not purely resistive.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Given a 396 meter length of Radio Shack RG58. At 250 kiloherz TLD says
(after some manipulation) that it has a propagation constant of
689.6 X 10^-9 + j7.933 X 10^-3. Zo is 50 -j4.344. Feed it with a
voltage source of 100 volts with a source resistance of 50 ohms.
Put a load on it of j50 ohms. The voltage reflection coefficient at the
load is -4.116 X 10^-3 + j1.091. The absolute value of this number is
1.091, a number greater than one. The power into this line is .1088
Watts. Fine. However, if I calculate the power at the middle of
the line, I get -34.42 watts, a negative number. Moreover, the SWR
calculated at the beginning of the line is -23.21.
What is negative average power?
What does a negative SWR signify?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:

Given a 396 meter length of Radio Shack RG58. At 250 kiloherz TLD says
(after some manipulation) that it has a propagation constant of
689.6 X 10^-9 + j7.933 X 10^-3. Zo is 50 -j4.344. Feed it with a

Doesn't that imply that the the matched line loss at 0.25MHz is
689.6E-9*20*e^1*100 dB/100m?

That is 0.0006dB/100m, it seems too good to be true!

Owen

Owen wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Given a 396 meter length of Radio Shack RG58. At 250 kiloherz TLD says
(after some manipulation) that it has a propagation constant of
689.6 X 10^-9 + j7.933 X 10^-3. Zo is 50 -j4.344. Feed it with a


Doesn't that imply that the the matched line loss at 0.25MHz is
689.6E-9*20*e^1*100 dB/100m?

That is 0.0006dB/100m, it seems too good to be true!

Owen
Hi Owen,
It is too good to be true. (Just consider it came from an unusually
good batch.) The whole exercise is nonsensical, though,
because it results in negative power and a negative SWR. Increase the
loss to a more realistic value and the negative power goes away as
does the negative SWR while the absolute value of the reflection
coefficient is still greater than 1. I was hoping I could get some
kind of nut philosophical justification for negative average power
out of Cecil, but you sprang the trap.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
I was hoping I could get some
kind of nut philosophical justification for negative average power
out of Cecil, but you sprang the trap.

The sign of power can indicate direction as in:

Pnet = Pfor - Pref

or destructive interference as in:

Pnet = P1 + P2 - 2*SQRT(P1*P2)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

CAM wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

I was hoping I could get some
kind of nut philosophical justification for negative average power
out of Cecil, but you sprang the trap.


The sign of power can indicate direction as in:

Pnet = Pfor - Pref

or destructive interference as in:

Pnet = P1 + P2 - 2*SQRT(P1*P2)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


I should have known I could depend on you, Cecil.
73
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH