What's happened to this NG????
Jack Crenshaw
was more than a little shocked to find everyone calling each other names
and engaging in verbal sparring of one kind or another.
I'm old enough to remember when this NG had nice people who were
interested in tube audio, and interested in sharing their hard-earned
knowledge.
What happened?
I'm sure there must be some deep, profound relationship between tube
audio and the number of Baptists in Finland. Color me slow, but I'm just
not seeing it.
It's sad to see a friendly, gentle group descend into the mud pit.
Jack
Ian Iveson
Where's your innocent question?
Ian
mick
There seems to be a tendency to "fill in" between the technical bits with
a bit of healthy mud-slinging! You'll still get (mostly) sensible answers
to your questions - if you remember to ask them... :-)
--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net
Ian Thompson-Bell
> After a long hiatus, I came over here to ask an innocent question. I
> was more than a little shocked to find everyone calling each other names
> and engaging in verbal sparring of one kind or another.
>
> I'm old enough to remember when this NG had nice people who were
> interested in tube audio, and interested in sharing their hard-earned
> knowledge.
>
> What happened?
>
Nothing. There's still a hard core of helpful, well mannered people.
Unfortunately there is also a vociferous foul mouthed minority that
worsen the S/N. Just ignore them.
Cheers
ian
Andre Jute
This is my 13th year on RAT and I cannot remember a time when there
wasn't some deliberate troublemaker here. If you've been before,
surely you remember the Magnequest Scum, or at least caught one of
their relict Porno Pasternack's destructive periodic swings through
RAT. Currenty the unwelcome hooligan is Worthless Peter Wieck, who
says openly that he is on RAT only for the bovvers.
Just ignore the people who do not contribute and ask your question.
Apply discrimination a.k.a. a kill file and you won't even see the
troublemakers.
However, it may be necessary to disabuse yourself of the notion that
there is such a thing as an "innocent question.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Mark S
"Jack Crenshaw" <jcr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13l36l4...@corp.supernews.com...
Hi Jack,
How long have you been away? This stuff has been going on for maybe 10
years; but the s/n surely has its up and downs. Maybe you visited last in
one of the "lows"? (Andre might have been riding his bike). It still has a
great deal to offer believe it or not but there are many silent
knowledgeable voices now unfortunately due to the fore mentioned bull shit.
Still, what's on your mind?
MarkS
Adam Stouffer
> After a long hiatus, I came over here to ask an innocent question. I
> was more than a little shocked to find everyone calling each other names
> and engaging in verbal sparring of one kind or another.
>
> I'm old enough to remember when this NG had nice people who were
> interested in tube audio, and interested in sharing their hard-earned
> knowledge.
>
> What happened?
>
They all moved to www.diyaudio.com
Lots of tube discussion and everything else audio related.
Adam
Eeyore
Andre Jute wrote:
> This is my 13th year on RAT and I cannot remember a time when there
> wasn't some deliberate troublemaker here.
That would be YOU.
You go out of your way to PROVOKE arguments.
Multi-grid
or perhaps www.audioasylum.com
But anyway, find a spot that suits you. It could even be here...:)
cheers,
Douglas
fryzz
technically inclined, 'twas ever thus.
graham
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47526984...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> This is my 13th year on RAT and I cannot remember a time when there
>> wasn't some deliberate troublemaker here.
> Eeyore wrote:
> That would be YOU.
>
> You go out of your way to PROVOKE arguments.
.... Eeyore, you are absojutely 100% correct !!!!!!
Eeyore
fryzz wrote:
> One does seem to find an inordinate number of social retards among the
> technically inclined, 'twas ever thus.
Considering JUTE in particular, it would seem the same applies to those who
aren't even that techically minded too.
My own observation is that you'll find fewer IDIOTS amongst the technically
capable compared to the general public. I can certainly better tolerate a
modicum of social ineptitude over a degree of plain stupidity.
Graham
Eeyore
graham wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >> This is my 13th year on RAT and I cannot remember a time when there
> >> wasn't some deliberate troublemaker here.
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > That would be YOU.
> >
> > You go out of your way to PROVOKE arguments.
>
> .... Eeyore, you are absojutely 100% correct !!!!!!
When I see Jute posting here, I despair.
He's not even that techically competent. I've long suspected he has
someone else he relies on for the technical content of his posts. And his
ramblings about bicycles etc and his absurd self-importance really grate.
Graham
Andre Jute
temporarily unkillfiled Worthless Wiecky. But here he is, in a classic
case of denial:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson aka Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When I see Jute posting here, I despair.
>
> He's not even that techically competent. I've long suspected he has
> someone else he relies on for the technical content of his posts.
What Poopie is telling us is:
1. He hates me.
2, I am technically competent.
3. He hates me more for being technically competent.
4. Since he hates me so much, I cannot be technically competent.
5. But the obvious fact is that I am technically competent.
6. Therefore, in Poopie's topsy-turvy reality, I am not competent but
just appear competent because someone competent is pulling my
technical strings.
LOL. I am my own sockpuppet and my own puppetmaster! Like that many-
armed Indian god called Kama Sutra!
Don't let reality confuse you, Poopie, or you might cut yourself on
Occam's Razor.
Okay, whelp,back in the killfile with Worthless and the garage vermin.
I've run out of time for flame mercants like you because I gotta do
something important: order bicycle parts.
Eeyore
Andre Jute wrote:
> I gotta do something important: order bicycle parts.
Case proven.
Graham
Jack Crenshaw
Jack
Jack Crenshaw
Many thanks to the many sane people who replied to assure me that
civility still holds sway in some corners of the NG. To answer the
questions, I was most active here ca. 2000-2001. I missed most of the
Magnequest shouting matches; in fact, as I recall that might have been
one of the reasons I moseyed off into the sunset. I've been doing
"Internet" stuff since way before there was an Internet, at least not a
public one. I started on CompuServe, which ought to provide a baseline.
I absolutely do remember many controversies going on on RAT during
those years, but "in my day" they were almost exclusively related to
technical issues.
----
Example and techbical tidbit:
I was in one argument over where or not the split-load phase inverter
has balanced output impedance on its two outputs. I was firmly and
vociferously in the equal-impedance camp.
FWIW, I was wrong. I have since done a full analysis of the circuit, and
see that the impedances are indeed unbalanced. In retrospect, this
perhaps shouldn't be surprising. The output on the cathode side looks
very much like that of a cathode follower, with strong feedback serving
to maintain the output voltage. Hence, low impedance. The plate side
has no such feedback. It's output impedance is pretty much that of a
simple grounded-cathode amplifier. Changes in load don't affect the
plate current much.
Just tossed that out there as a freebie.
-----
The loss of civility over time is a sad affair, to me. I guess we can
cradit it to the general dumbing-down and me-first attitude of the
entire world population (not just the US). It's still sad, though.
Jack
Jack Crenshaw
Now that the air is a bit clearer, I'm almost embarrassed to ask my
"innocent" question, because it was OT anyway <!>.
I'm seeking advice on a new turntable. After much thought, I've decided
to pass on the $10,000 - $100,000 TT's, and settle for something a
little more modest.
Back in the 50's I had a Components Jr. TT (anyone else remember them?).
No frills, no fancy machining, no speed control, no auto anything.
Just the good, quiet, reliable performance of a system with belt drive
and a heavy, non-metallic flywheel, in an era when Garrards had idler
wheels. It cost $59.95, sans tone arm, cartridge, plinth, suspension,
etc., etc.
I want another one like that. Anyone have any advice?
Sorry for the excursion into manners and civility.
Jack
John Byrns
Jack Crenshaw <jcr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Many thanks to the many sane people who replied to assure me that
> civility still holds sway in some corners of the NG. To answer the
> questions, I was most active here ca. 2000-2001. I missed most of the
> Magnequest shouting matches; in fact, as I recall that might have been
> one of the reasons I moseyed off into the sunset. I've been doing
> "Internet" stuff since way before there was an Internet, at least not a
> public one. I started on CompuServe, which ought to provide a baseline.
>
> I absolutely do remember many controversies going on on RAT during
> those years, but "in my day" they were almost exclusively related to
> technical issues.
> ----
>
> Example and techbical tidbit:
> I was in one argument over where or not the split-load phase inverter
> has balanced output impedance on its two outputs. I was firmly and
> vociferously in the equal-impedance camp.
>
> FWIW, I was wrong. I have since done a full analysis of the circuit, and
> see that the impedances are indeed unbalanced. In retrospect, this
> perhaps shouldn't be surprising. The output on the cathode side looks
> very much like that of a cathode follower, with strong feedback serving
> to maintain the output voltage. Hence, low impedance. The plate side
> has no such feedback. It's output impedance is pretty much that of a
> simple grounded-cathode amplifier. Changes in load don't affect the
> plate current much.
But the important question is where you come down with respect to the
idea of adding a build-out resistor to the cathode output to equalize
the two output impedances?
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
robert casey
>>
>>It's sad to see a friendly, gentle group descend into the
>>mud pit.
>
>
> Where's your innocent question?
>
"If tin whistles are made of tin, then what are fog horns made of?" :-)
Seems that things got more "interesting" when someone from "down under"
discovered this NG (probably via crossposting of something posted to
both rat and aus.hi-fi). Said person is quite knowledgeable, but
doesn't suffer fools at all. Like myself after I posted something
really boneheaded about DC currents in AC transformers not designed for
single ended operation (and I deserved it too :-) ).
RdM
rec.audio.tubes<13l8h73...@corp.supernews.com>:
> Now that the air is a bit clearer, I'm almost embarrassed to ask my
> "innocent" question, because it was OT anyway <!>.
>
> I'm seeking advice on a new turntable. After much thought, I've decided
> to pass on the $10,000 - $100,000 TT's, and settle for something a
> little more modest.
>
> Back in the 50's I had a Components Jr. TT (anyone else remember them?).
> No frills, no fancy machining, no speed control, no auto anything.
> Just the good, quiet, reliable performance of a system with belt drive
> and a heavy, non-metallic flywheel, in an era when Garrards had idler
> wheels. It cost $59.95, sans tone arm, cartridge, plinth, suspension,
> etc., etc.
>
> I want another one like that. Anyone have any advice?
You might enjoy exploring any Swiss Lenco links;- this from my bookmarks:-
[a random link which includes links & maybe the giant audiogon thread on them]
> Sorry for the excursion into manners and civility.
I don't believe that! ;=})
> Jack
These are idler drives, with massive cast platters, like the Garrard 301 (but
different, finer, & more Swiss!) and even the Garrard SP25 Mk1 & Mk2 (after
that they went to cheap pressed platters and plastic bits, tonearms) despite
their smaller (10"?) platter, and other, regarded, idler drives. Check it out.
I have all of the above as restoration projects, albeit basically all working.
However, you clearly state that you are interested in a heavy platter *belt*
drive, with a memory of such or similiar in an era of Garrard idler drives ...
Why?
Maybe the Teres project? But the cost may be higher ... research some!
Ross
--
"No man is your friend. No man is your enemy. Every man is your teacher"
[Anon ... ???]
"Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them more."
Oscar Wilde
RdM
rec.audio.tubes<775al3l83hcp44lrk...@4ax.com>:
<ahem!>
> You might enjoy exploring any Swiss Lenco links;- this from my bookmarks:-
> [a random link which includes links & maybe the giant audiogon thread on them]
Jack Crenshaw
Hmm. I guess I never thought of that. Ordinarily, and strictly from an
aesthetic POV, I'd be violently against adding resistance to _RAISE_
the output impedance of a naturally low-impedance ckt. But if the
alternative is a huge imbalance as the signal drivers the output grids
into conduction, I guess I can see the point.
I'd much more prefer a driver stage between them, as in the Heath W-5M,
so the output impendance of the p.i. stage doesn't matter so much.
Jack
Jack Crenshaw
I guess it's more a matter of history and prejudice than anything else.
I've been involved in "hi-fi" music since before there _WAS_ hi-fi
... or at least any organized efforts on it. In my day (late 40's,
early 50's) the only turntables anyone knew anything about were the
large studio TT's. A few tinkerers were adapting them to home use, but
most of use great unwashed had only "record changes" where you could
stack disks 20 deep. They were all, AFAIK, idler-wheel drives because
they needed enough torque to run the disk mangler -- er, changer mechanism.
Lots of early hi-fi experimenters were using Garrard mechanisms.
Ca. mid-50's, a company called Components Inc. (I think) came out with a
belt-drive turntable. I reckon it was certainly not the very first
such, but it was the first _I_ knew about. A bit dear for my
grad-student budget, though.
In 1956 they came out with Components Jr. That's the TT I remember so
fondly. It was a turntable only -- you had to make your own plinth, and
mount your own arm. It cost $59.96 US, which I thought was way good.
No frills at all, save for a 33/45 speed changer (a little arm that
flipped the belt to a different-diameter pulley on the motor. The
platter was cast _PLASTER_-- heavy and cheap -- with a spun Al cover
that threaded onto the shaft. The bearings were teflon, with a single
ball thrust bearing. Not elegant, I suppose, but it met my needs until
around 1972 or so, when I traded up to a Braun.
FWIW, the cartridge I used in that old system was an ESL (Electro-Sonic)
moving-coil cartridge, with stupendous performance. ESL never made an
effective transition to stereo, but their mono cartridge was state of
the art.
Jack
Jack Crenshaw
Dang, guys! I post a message lamenting the lack of civility and OT
rants in this NG, and you use it to launch a series of uncivil, OT
rants? Please.
In the end, sir, have you no shame?
Jack
News Client
> Hmm. I guess I never thought of that. Ordinarily, and strictly from an aesthetic POV, I'd be violently against adding resistance
> to _RAISE_ the output impedance of a naturally low-impedance ckt. But if the alternative is a huge imbalance as the signal
> drivers the output grids into conduction, I guess I can see the point.
>
> I'd much more prefer a driver stage between them, as in the Heath W-5M, so the output impendance of the p.i. stage doesn't matter
> so much.
There is no imbalance. Or at least not the way you are thinking. A
build-out resistor, as some designers use, is completely the wrong
solution to the problem that may not even need to be solved.
If the two outputs of the split-load inverter were independent, and if
the output impedances were different, then the magnitude gains and
frequency responses from the input to the two outputs would be
different when driving matched loads. To a close approximation, this
is not true. The gains and frequency responses are the same. This
is obvious when you consider, neglecting strays and grid current, that
the plate and cathode currents are exactly equal.
Balanced operation of the split-load inverter depends on equal loading
of the outputs. Any time you do something unequal to one output, you
end up with unbalanced behavior. That includes trying to measure the
output impedance one output at a time. The reason for this is that the
outputs are not isolated and independent. Once you realize that there
is strong coupling between the outputs, the seeming paradox of the
split-load inverter is resolved.
Morgan Jones, for what it's worth, discusses this in detail in "Valve
Amplifier". He has a separate analysis of the output impedance for
equal and unequal loading. At the end of the section titled "Output
resistance with both terminals equally loaded (Class A1 loading)"
he writes, "Because Zk = Za, the frequency response at each output
is forced to be the same, so the output resistances must also be
equal, and rout(k) = rout(a)."
On the other hand, if you ever drive the stage following the split-load
inverter into grid current, you immediately end up with unbalanced
loading and therefore unbalanced gains. Jones mentions this as well
in the next section of the book. That's why you may want the buffer
stage between the inverter and the output stage.
I think the confusion about the output impedances of the split-load
inverter is mostly the result of people assuming they are fixed and
independent, which in fact they are not.
John Byrns
"News Client" <newsc...@serviceprovider.com> wrote:
It is worth noting that the first edition of "Morgan Jones" advocates
using a build out resistor in the cathode circuit to equalize the source
impedances, in the later editions he changes his tune. I have often
wondered how he came up with the build out resistor idea he advocated in
the first edition, or was it a Wireless World article where he first
presented the build out resistor idea?
Andre Jute
> In article <76idnae3VciGzvnanZ2dnUVZ_t2in...@rcn.net>,
Valve Amplifiers, Morgan Jones, 1st ed, Newnes, p209: "The
differential, or long-tailed, pair and its derivatives", with the
discussion of the build-out resistor following on pp210-211. He gives
a complete analysis, then offers the Leak TL12+ splitter as an
example. No mention of Wireless World.
HTH.
I take the view that if the floating paraphase or the concertina isn't
good enough for you, you deserve what you do to yourself. I said that
to Peter Q of ANUK one lazy Sunday afternoon and he promptly faxed me
a circuit by Mr Kondo which was essentially a push-pull Ongaku but
with transformer input and all transformer coupling -- now that's
phase splitting!
The Phantom
wrote:
In the January 1996 issue of Wireless World, he has an article starting on
page 24. At the bottom of the first column on page 25, he says:
"The design rationale is new, and to my knowledge, the cathode build-out
resistor in the phase splitter is unique, Fig. 1."
Right under Figure 1, it says "Power amplifier using concertina phase
splitter and featuring - possibly for the first time - cathode build-out
resistor in the driver stage."
In the letters section of the March 1996 issue, he discusses the phase
splitter details.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns
The Phantom
What's the copyright date on that edition of "Valve Amplifiers"? In a
letter on page 252 of the March 1996 issue of Wireless World, Jones goes
through an analysis which indicates that the output impedances are
different.
He says "The cathode output impedance has to be calculated fully, but
generally gives a value of about 1 kohm. It is because the ratio of output
impedances is so large, that it is essential to equalise them, in order to
maintain high-frequency balance. To a first approximation, a build-out
resistor in the cathode equal to the load resistance would be required." I
guess he changed his mind later.
I read the extensive discussion (arguments?) in 1999 and 2001 in this group
on the subject, and thought I'd throw in my two cents worth. I've posted
an analysis using a modern symbolic algebra program over on ABSE. The
analysis doesn't consider any parasitics such as Miller capacitance, etc.,
but they could easily be included.
The analysis clearly shows that the impedances at plate and cathode of the
phase splitter (with equal load impedances) are different, but the gains
from grid to plate and cathode are identical, and remain identical as long
as any additional load impedances remain identical.
The Phantom
resistance of the phase splitter.
Equation (31) seems correct to me, and is the same as Preisman's
(http://www.aikenamps.com/cathodyne.pdf) result.
Equation (30) is not the same as Preisman's result, and I an unable to see
how it was derived. Can anyone else see a derivation, or is this an error?
News Client
> What's the copyright date on that edition of "Valve Amplifiers"? In
> a letter on page 252 of the March 1996 issue of Wireless World, Jones
> goes through an analysis which indicates that the output impedances
> are different.
The third edition was published in 2003. No doubt it represents his
revised thinking on the subject. It's even possible Jones changed his
mind after reading the discussions right here on this newsgroup.
> He says "The cathode output impedance has to be calculated fully, but
> generally gives a value of about 1 kohm. It is because the ratio of
> output impedances is so large, that it is essential to equalise them,
> in order to maintain high-frequency balance. To a first approximation,
> a build-out resistor in the cathode equal to the load resistance would
> be required."
He now writes, "Initially, it seems surprising that series feedback (Rk
= Ra, after all) should reduce output resistance from the anode so that
rout ~ 1/gm, but this can be understood by considering an external
capacitive load on each output. In the same way that Rk = Ra defines
a gain of 1 at low frequencies, so Xc(k) = Xc(a) defines a gain of 1 at
high frequencies, and changing this ratio of capacitances certainly
would change the gain or frequency response at high frequencies, since
it would change the feedback ratio B."
In my opinion this itself is a somewhat muddled statement, but it does
show Jones is heading in the right direction.
> I've posted an analysis using a modern symbolic algebra program over
> on ABSE. The analysis doesn't consider any parasitics such as Miller
> capacitance, etc., but they could easily be included.
>
> The analysis clearly shows that the impedances at plate and cathode
> of the phase splitter (with equal load impedances) are different, but
> the gains from grid to plate and cathode are identical, and remain
> identical as long as any additional load impedances remain identical.
No doubt your math is correct. The problem isn't the math, but rather
the interpretation. It doesn't take any math at all to understand
what's going on with the split-load inverter.
Suppose you have a split-load phase inverter with 10K plate and cathode
resistors. And suppose the two output impedances, measured separately,
are 10K and 1K Ohms, respectively.
You've made two statements:
1) The output impedances from plate and cathode are different
2) The gains from grid to plate and cathode are identical
Both of these statements are predicated on the condition that the plate
and cathode loads remain identical.
Now, let's put equal 0.01uF load capacitors across the top and bottom
resistors. By your first statement and the normal definition of output
impedance, we would expect the resulting frequency responses from the
two outputs to be different: 15.9kHz from the cathode, and 1.59kHz for
the plate. This is the problem the build-out resistor is supposed to
address.
But by your second statement, we know the frequency responses cannot
be different, because this would mean the gains would differ as well.
In fact, neglecting strays, both in theory and in practice, the gains
and frequency response remain equal. Moreover, measurement will show
that the HF roll-off point is much higher in frequency than would be
predicted using the low (1K Ohm) cathode-side output impedance value.
Certainly no build-out resistor is needed.
We conclude that the two output impedances are effectively the same,
under the constraint of equal loads, regardless of what the math has
to say.
There is a resolution to this paradox. Again, the problem lies not
with the math, but with the mental model. Please read my earlier
posting again. You cannot treat the two outputs as independent
Thevenin equivalent generators having fixed internal voltages and
constant series resistances. As you see, from either measurements
or analysis (it doesn't matter which, the results are the same) you
will predict different HF responses from the two outputs driving
equal capacitive loads. This is not what happens in real life.
The answer, as I said previously, has to do with negative feedback
and the interaction between the two outputs. The model in which the
two output are separate and independent does not apply. Any analysis
or measurement that tries to treat them as such inevitably leads to
erroneous results and unproductive kludges such as the cathode build-
out resistor.
The math is correct. Still, it is at best an incomplete description
to say that the output impedances of the split-load phase inverter
are unequal. Without further qualification this leads to inaccurate
predictions of the inverter's performance. There is enough information
here and in the archived threads for anyone to resolve this apparent
paradox.
This is the last I have to say on the subject.
John Byrns
News Client <newsc...@serviceprovider.com> wrote:
> We conclude that the two output impedances are effectively the same,
> under the constraint of equal loads, regardless of what the math has
> to say.
>
> There is a resolution to this paradox. Again, the problem lies not
> with the math, but with the mental model. Please read my earlier
> posting again. You cannot treat the two outputs as independent
> Thevenin equivalent generators having fixed internal voltages and
> constant series resistances. As you see, from either measurements
> or analysis (it doesn't matter which, the results are the same) you
> will predict different HF responses from the two outputs driving
> equal capacitive loads. This is not what happens in real life.
>
> The answer, as I said previously, has to do with negative feedback
> and the interaction between the two outputs. The model in which the
> two output are separate and independent does not apply. Any analysis
> or measurement that tries to treat them as such inevitably leads to
> erroneous results and unproductive kludges such as the cathode build-
> out resistor.
>
> The math is correct. Still, it is at best an incomplete description
> to say that the output impedances of the split-load phase inverter
> are unequal. Without further qualification this leads to inaccurate
> predictions of the inverter's performance. There is enough information
> here and in the archived threads for anyone to resolve this apparent
> paradox.
Actually in real life there is no problem at all in treating the two
outputs independently, as long as the loads, equal loads, are taken into
account in the analysis. The output impedance of the the cathode and
anode are indeed very different, but the voltage gains of the Thevenin
equivalent generators for the anode and cathode circuits are also
different, and it is this difference in voltage gain between the anode
and cathode circuits that forces the outputs to be equal when the loads
are equal. I don't remember for sure but I may have, or not as the case
may be, posted the mathematical derivation of the output impedances and
gains for both the cathode and anode circuits here in this group many
years ago, showing how they act together to provide equal outputs into
equal loads.
The Phantom
Did you look at the analysis I posted over on ABSE?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns
John Byrns
The Phantom <pha...@aol.com> wrote:
No, I don't subscribe to "ABSE", it would have been better to post it in
"ABPR" if it needed a binary group. I would think you could have posted
a few equations right here in "RAT", unless you feel strongly that too
much math would be a turn off for the group.
The Phantom
>> Did you look at the analysis I posted over on ABSE?
>
>No, I don't subscribe to "ABSE", it would have been better to post it in
>"ABPR" if it needed a binary group. I would think you could have posted
>a few equations right here in "RAT", unless you feel strongly that too
>much math would be a turn off for the group.
What is the full name of ABPR; I don't recognize it.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns
John Byrns
The Phantom <pha...@aol.com> wrote:
alt.binaries.pictures.radio
The Phantom
wrote:
>In article <4qsim3lib13eo5v67...@4ax.com>,
> The Phantom <pha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:24:51 GMT, John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Did you look at the analysis I posted over on ABSE?
>> >
>> >No, I don't subscribe to "ABSE", it would have been better to post it in
>> >"ABPR" if it needed a binary group. I would think you could have posted
>> >a few equations right here in "RAT", unless you feel strongly that too
>> >much math would be a turn off for the group.
>>
>> What is the full name of ABPR; I don't recognize it.
>
>alt.binaries.pictures.radio
Ok, I posted it over there.
I also looked through some more old Wireless World magazines. In the April
1996 issue, M. H. McFadden in a letter told Morgan Jones he was wrong about
the phase splitter.
In the July/August issue, Jones referred to McFadden's letter and described
some measurements he made which convinced him he was wrong. In his own
words:
"Mr. McFadden is therefore correct. My understanding of the operation of
the concertina phase splitter into equal loads was wrong, and I thank him
for spurring this investigation. Unfortunately, I like to know where my
equations came from, and why, but found that even Langford-Smith did not
offer a derivation."
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns