Telstar Electronics wrote:

...
Keep up the amusing posts Frank...
www.telstar-electronics.com



Personally, I run a speech compressor. I doubt many of these idiots
could install one; apparently, they can't afford to have the local "cb
tweak" install if for them either.

Local, I kill the speech compressor, it is only for DX. Frankly, it
doesn't hurt my feelings they don't have one! evil grin

Keep up the sales pitch--few will be disappointed if they purchase one ...

Regards,
JS

cmdr buzz corey wrote:

...
That's just what the average cber wants. Makes em think they got a
"BIG RADIO".


Well, that is certainly better than a "Big-Headed-Amateur-Wannabe!"

Get mental help, the opportunity is still open to 'ya!

JS

On Sep 22, 3:16 pm, John Smith wrote:
Personally, I run a speech compressor. I doubt many of these idiots
could install one; apparently, they can't afford to have the local "cb
tweak" install if for them either.
Local, I kill the speech compressor, it is only for DX. Frankly, it
doesn't hurt my feelings they don't have one! evil grin
Keep up the sales pitch--few will be disappointed if they purchase one ...

John... good to hear from someone who has some experience with
processors.
I'm curious about the one you have. Can you tell me about it?
www.telstar-electrnoics.com

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:26:46 -0700, Telstar Electronics
wrote in
om:

On Sep 20, 10:48 pm, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
How well it works depends on how well you hacked the design from this
link I posted (while pointing out some of the many problems with your
earlier splatterbox):
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek/tr-bias/tr-bias1.htm

This is the first time I've been to that link.


Yeah, bull****. I've posted it four times over the years, and I'm sure
you've run across it in your quest for hackable designs.


The circuit he shows
with the two transistors is similar to mine.


Gee, what a suprise.


My feeling is that his is
needlessly more complex, but I'm sure it works.


Let's see -your- design, Brian.


I also agree with his
statements about the diode method used for tracking. That method works
a little better than no tracking and is not worth the effort.


Yet you used it in your previous amps. You even defended the design,
which is when I posted the link above. It wasn't long afterwards that
you came up with your last hack job.


This is
because putting two diodes in parallel never works right. One always
has a lower drop... and hogs.


I don't see two diodes in parallel. Time to lay off the sauce, Brian.

On Sep 23, 4:34 am, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I also agree with his
statements about the diode method used for tracking. That method works
a little better than no tracking and is not worth the effort.
Yet you used it in your previous amps. You even defended the design,
which is when I posted the link above. It wasn't long afterwards that
you came up with your last hack job.
This is
because putting two diodes in parallel never works right. One always
has a lower drop... and hogs.
I don't see two diodes in parallel. Time to lay off the sauce, Brian.

Frank... I didn't say the diode scheme didn't work... I said it didn't
work well. Actaually, the Motorola RF Data Manual shows this scheme in
many of their designs... so maybe you give them a call and let them
know how foolish they are... lol
But seriously, the diode thing isn't worth the trouble unless you are
willing to hand-select components that go alaong with that circuit.
Even then, it's certainly not the best method. By the way... the diode
tracking scheme does try and use two diodes in parallel. Sorry you
don't see that... but that's how it is... and why it doesn't work
well.
www.telstar-electronics.com

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:06:02 -0700, Telspam Electronics
wrote in
. com:

On Sep 23, 4:34 am, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I also agree with his
statements about the diode method used for tracking. That method works
a little better than no tracking and is not worth the effort.
Yet you used it in your previous amps. You even defended the design,
which is when I posted the link above. It wasn't long afterwards that
you came up with your last hack job.
This is
because putting two diodes in parallel never works right. One always
has a lower drop... and hogs.
I don't see two diodes in parallel. Time to lay off the sauce, Brian.

Frank... I didn't say the diode scheme didn't work... I said it didn't
work well. Actaually, the Motorola RF Data Manual shows this scheme in
many of their designs... so maybe you give them a call and let them
know how foolish they are... lol
But seriously, the diode thing isn't worth the trouble unless you are
willing to hand-select components that go alaong with that circuit.
Even then, it's certainly not the best method. By the way... the diode
tracking scheme does try and use two diodes in parallel. Sorry you
don't see that... but that's how it is... and why it doesn't work
well.


I checked the page again thinking maybe it changed, but I still don't
see two diodes. Just one. What two diodes are -you- seeing, Brian?

On Sep 24, 4:35 am, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I checked the page again thinking maybe it changed, but I still don't
see two diodes. Just one. What two diodes are -you- seeing, Brian?- Hide quoted text -

You're kidding me right?... the external tracking diode (one) and the
base-emitter diode of the power transistor (two). Got it?
www.telstar-electronics.com

Telstar Electronics wrote:
On Sep 24, 4:35 am, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
I checked the page again thinking maybe it changed, but I still don't
see two diodes. Just one. What two diodes are -you- seeing, Brian?- Hide quoted text -

You're kidding me right?... the external tracking diode (one) and the
base-emitter diode of the power transistor (two). Got it?
www.telstar-electronics.com

====================================
What a totally useless dialogue on a topic not relevant to this NG

Would you please find another outlet for your egos.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

On Sep 24, 6:25 am, Highland Ham
wrote:
What a totally useless dialogue on a topic not relevant to this NG
Would you please find another outlet for your egos.
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH


Hmmm... a discussion about the biasing of an RF amplifier is not
relevant to this NG huh?
Find another outlet for your complaints... lol

Telstar Electronics wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:25 am, Highland Ham
wrote:

What a totally useless dialogue on a topic not relevant to this NG
Would you please find another outlet for your egos.
Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH



Hmmm... a discussion about the biasing of an RF amplifier is not
relevant to this NG huh?
Find another outlet for your complaints... lol

Please quit cross posting this to 'rec.radio.amateur.homebrew';
this _clearly_ is not a homebrewing discussion.

Regards,

Michael