Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Background Radiation - Could It Be a Vexation ?  (Read 41624 times)
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1323




Ignore
« Reply #120 on: November 03, 2011, 02:27:25 AM »

Sam,

Back in the late 1920s, a lot of very eminent men argued about the existence of sidebands, even though there had been a transatlantic SSB link since 1926 on about 60 kHz. It even led to a UK government research report on it - when that came out in about 1932 (!) the argument was long over.

Just a bit of irrelevant information, but that's not out of place on this thread.
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #121 on: November 03, 2011, 02:56:29 AM »

Quote
G3RZP
   
RE: Background Radiation - Could It Be a Vexation ?
« Reply #120 on: Today at 02:27:25 AM »
   
Reply with quoteQuote
Sam,

Back in the late 1920s, a lot of very eminent men argued about the existence of sidebands, even though there had been a transatlantic SSB link since 1926 on about 60 kHz. It even led to a UK government research report on it - when that came out in about 1932 (!) the argument was long over.

Just a bit of irrelevant information, but that's not out of place on this thread.

  Good one Peter C.  I had no idea that this alpha-male head-butt started that far back.    Curiously, there were also some very eminent men who stentorianly ridiculed Rudolph Diesel's compression-ignition, goober-oil burning engine when it came out in 1893. 
cheers
Rich, ag6k
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2011, 05:40:04 AM »

Just walk away;
there comes a point in the defense of a theory when all reasoned and logical discussion fails to prop up a theory in the absence of physical evidence. As a former electronics technician of twenty one years; you can spout arcane theories all day, (or until the cows come home whichever you prefer) but if you don't have a shred of physical evidence it doesn't contribute to the advancement of the state of the art let alone get the amplifier fixed.

To continue to argue the point without designing an experiment to test the theory or to explore other possibilities. is counterproductive and a detriment to one's credibility.  

I have read reams of articles and complaints about instability in Heath SB-220s and Kenwood TL-922s, funny thing you don't hear L-4B or Swan Mark Two owners complaining, do you?
They all use the same tubes, seems like the Drake and Swan designs are good stable designs and the Heath and Kenwood designs are crap.

Why not address the actual problem instead of making a name on some theory that belongs on Coast to Coast AM?
 
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #123 on: November 03, 2011, 04:44:04 PM »

Quote
AF6LJ,    Susan
RE: Background Radiation - Could It Be a Vexation ?
« Reply #122 on: Today at 05:40:04 AM »
   
Reply
Just walk away;
there comes a point in the defense of a theory when all reasoned and logical discussion fails to prop up a theory in the absence of physical evidence. As a former electronics technician of twenty one years; you can spout arcane theories all day, (or until the cows come home whichever you prefer) but if you don't have a shred of physical evidence

  The evidence:
1.  Sound waves do not travel well in a vacuum so the arc is not inside the vacuum tube as Tom R. asserts.
3.  Tubes that filament-grid short during a big bang do not test gassy - so it's not the tube.
4.  The sudden change in R-supp during the big bang can not be explained by HF energy because R-supp is paralleled by a low inductance.
5.  high-energy photons are known to be able to bounce electrons.   Example: In a florescent lamp, UV photons from ionized Hg vapour strike P atoms, bounce electrons to a higher orbit, and when the electrons fall back to their original orbit they emit light. 

Quote
it doesn't contribute to the advancement of the state of the art let alone get the amplifier fixed

  One must first realize that the problem was not a gassy tube in order to get the problem of too much VHF amplification fixed.

.
Quote
To continue to argue the point without designing an experiment to test the theory or to explore other possibilities. is counterproductive and a detriment to one's credibility.
 

  So tell  us what other possibilities are Susan.

Quote
I have read reams of articles and complaints about instability in Heath SB-220s and Kenwood TL-922s, funny thing you don't hear L-4B or Swan Mark Two owners complaining, do you?

  I certainly do since L4B owners still order suppressor retrofit kits .  The L4B  does not have as much of a problem because it does have as much HV - which means it does not have as much VHF-amplification - which means it has less chance of VHF oscillation.  .

Quote
They all use the same tubes, seems like the Drake and Swan designs are good stable designs and the Heath and Kenwood designs are crap.

Why not address the actual problem.
 


  The actual problem is not reducing VHF amplification enough to obviate VHF oscillation.  . 

Quote
instead of making a name on some theory that belongs on Coast to Coast AM?

Rich, ag6k
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #124 on: November 04, 2011, 07:32:25 AM »

Your logic Rich is based on circumstantial deviance and isn't supported by real world experience.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #125 on: November 04, 2011, 07:49:25 AM »

Your logic Rich is based on circumstantial deviance and isn't supported by real world experience.

Logical thought and facing the truth will not sell suppressor kits.
Logged
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 1560




Ignore
« Reply #126 on: November 04, 2011, 08:08:01 AM »

After reading this thread I have decided to go public with my dilithium crystal suppressor kit.  Tired of cosmic rays causing your amplifier tubes to arc?  Well, you need to buy my dilithium crystal suppressor kits.  Dilithium cannot be found on the earth, but thanks to a time travelling Starfleet officer, I have enough to manufacture and sell high efficiency dilithium crystal suppressors.  For greatest effect, you'll need three of my suppressors, one that handles Newtonian physics, one for Quantum physics, and one for the new physics described to me by the wayward Starfleet officer.  Order now, supplies are limited!  Of course these suppressors are very expensive due to the rarity of dilithium crystals.

I could not resist.   Wink

73.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #127 on: November 04, 2011, 09:05:58 AM »

The entire thing about parasitics is just bizarre.
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #128 on: November 04, 2011, 09:24:30 AM »

Quote
AF6LJ
Susan

RE: Background Radiation - Could It Be a Vexation ?
« Reply #124 on: Today at 07:32:25 AM »
   
Reply with quoteQuote
Your logic Rich is based on circumstantial deviance and isn't supported by real world experience.

 My logic is based on what I learned in Physics classes, Electronic Engineering classes, the experience of repairing amplifiers that sustained big bangs and  what I learned from autopsying kaput 3-400Zs, 3-500Zs, 8874s, 8875s, and 8877s. 
  The most surprising thing to me about this thread is that so many of the skeptics did not understand what I wrote even after multiple repeats.  Looking back, what I should have done was to first ask how many people believe that sound waves can travel in a vacuum, and the go from there.
  The funniest part about this thread is that some of the most vociferous skeptics lived in areas where they could see the spectacular  1,000,000-Ampere + N2/red aurora, yet they had no trouble expertly professing that it was absolutely impossible for higher-energy photons to cause current flow.

Laughter really is the best medicine.
Rich, ag6k
... and Susan, how about proposing your alternate theory?
Logged
AF6LJ
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #129 on: November 04, 2011, 10:38:08 AM »

Quote
AF6LJ
Susan

RE: Background Radiation - Could It Be a Vexation ?
« Reply #124 on: Today at 07:32:25 AM »
   
Reply with quoteQuote
Your logic Rich is based on circumstantial deviance and isn't supported by real world experience.

 My logic is based on what I learned in Physics classes, Electronic Engineering classes, the experience of repairing amplifiers that sustained big bangs and  what I learned from autopsying kaput 3-400Zs, 3-500Zs, 8874s, 8875s, and 8877s. 
  The most surprising thing to me about this thread is that so many of the skeptics did not understand what I wrote even after multiple repeats.  Looking back, what I should have done was to first ask how many people believe that sound waves can travel in a vacuum, and the go from there.
  The funniest part about this thread is that some of the most vociferous skeptics lived in areas where they could see the spectacular  1,000,000-Ampere + N2/red aurora, yet they had no trouble expertly professing that it was absolutely impossible for higher-energy photons to cause current flow.

Laughter really is the best medicine.
Rich, ag6k
... and Susan, how about proposing your alternate theory?
My alternate theory is the design of the amplifier is at fault.
There are more crap designs than good designs. I would also add that bad tubes get built sometimes with virtual leaks. (contaminated materials that outgas into the vacuum over time).

You have not provided any documentation on what happens during this "big bang" and what I mean by documentation are meter readings or any way to repeat the failure mode. You make a religious leap of faith based on not being able to find another cause.

Google "Effects of high energy particles on vacuum tube operation" and see what you come up with, nothing, zipp, nadda....

Show me just one peer reviewed paper that supports your failure mode.

If what you say actually dose happen it would have been reported in the semiconductor industry decades ago when they first began ion implantation, a big bang like that could cause tens of thousands even  hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to implantation equipment.
The same level of damage would be happening to ion discharge milling equipment.

If you have had the physics then you know one high energy particle or even a few hundred won't do what you are claiming happened. A million amps of aurora is distributed over several tens to hundreds of cubic miles in the upper atmosphere.

I respectfully submit the science and the logic just isn't there.
Show me the peer reviewed papers and I'll gladly change my mind. If I have sufficient proof I will believe anything no matter how strange it may appear.

Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #130 on: November 04, 2011, 12:08:30 PM »

The amplifier forum has become like the Twilight Zone in the past few weeks, or like a trip through the looking glass.  This is 9 pages to discuss some of the worse science fiction yet.
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1323




Ignore
« Reply #131 on: November 04, 2011, 12:23:21 PM »

Tom,

some 40 odd years ago, there was a string of quite amusing short SF stories about a character called Fritz van Noon and the Unconventional Engineers, who toured the galaxy dealing with strange things. One of those stories had a set of glowing mountains because the mountains had layers of gallium and arsenic, with iron veins: rotation around a double sun induced enough current to light up the layers of gallium and arsenic as giant LEDs.

The cosmic ray induced arc triggering VHF parasitics falls, in my book, to not quite as inventive pseudo science fiction as that.
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9748


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #132 on: November 04, 2011, 12:36:10 PM »

Tom,

some 40 odd years ago, there was a string of quite amusing short SF stories about a character called Fritz van Noon and the Unconventional Engineers, who toured the galaxy dealing with strange things. One of those stories had a set of glowing mountains because the mountains had layers of gallium and arsenic, with iron veins: rotation around a double sun induced enough current to light up the layers of gallium and arsenic as giant LEDs.

The cosmic ray induced arc triggering VHF parasitics falls, in my book, to not quite as inventive pseudo science fiction as that.

Peter,

This stuff has been going on for years. Not one other person experienced in HF PA's or vacuum tubes has ever agreed with any of it. When the ARRL sent articles out for review dozens of people, from Rockwell through every other notable place, all came back saying it was pure fiction. There is no amount of talking sense, or science, or evidence that can ever change any of this.

The damage this nonsense does to people trying to learn goes far beyond what appears on the surface. The recent, very bad tube filament voltage article from QST was rooted in this same source of psuedo-science. It's probably the single worse thing that has happened to our hobby's technology base in years.

This, and the nichrome low Q stuff, was just a small sample of the nonsense pile.

73 Tom
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1323




Ignore
« Reply #133 on: November 04, 2011, 03:12:12 PM »

Tom,

I feel that in this respect, the RSGB are, for once, ahead of ARRL. The majority of technical articles get offered by email to a fairly large committee for volunteers - more than one - to review. On the odd occasion that the first two volunteer reviewers don't agree (once in more than five years!), two external reviewers are called in. The only time this happened, we had one reviewer in favour and four against.......thumbs down! If the article is acceptable but it is felt changes are needed, the lead reviewer works with the author to get the article acceptable. In a number of cases where the author is a non native English speaker, this can mean a fairly major re-write, which the reviewer does - gratis, I may say. The author gets the cash - the reviewer has 'the gratifying feeling that our duty has been done' - Gilbert & Sullivan, the Mikado.
 
Logged
AG6K
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #134 on: November 04, 2011, 03:29:36 PM »

Quote
W8JI, Tom Rauch
Peter,

This stuff has been going on for years. Not one other person experienced in HF PA's or vacuum tubes has ever agreed with any of it.

  When Tom Rauch, W8JI telephoned me after the 2nd QST Magazine article on parasites was published he told me that most of the 400 SB-220 amplifiers he had repaired had signs of VHF parasitic damage. 

Quote
When the ARRL sent articles out for review dozens of people, from Rockwell through every other notable place, all came back saying it was pure fiction.
  Is it pure fiction that each 3% increase in Th-W filament potential cuts emissive life by half?
Quote
>There is no amount of talking sense,

  Does it make sense that dipmeters can not find parasitic resonances?

Quote
or science, or evidence that can ever change any of this.

The damage this nonsense does to people trying to learn goes far beyond what appears on the surface. The recent, very bad tube filament voltage article from QST was rooted in this same source of psuedo-science. It's probably the single worse thing that has happened to our hobby's technology base in years.

This, and the nichrome low Q stuff, was just a small sample of the nonsense pile.
73 Tom[

  “The combination of both resistance and inductance is very effective in limiting parasitic oscillations to a negligible value of current.”
- -  F. E. Handy, W1BDI    1926 Ed.  The Radio Amateur's Handbook,  p. 72,
••  Is  this info obsolete as some of our "experts" have professed?.  Has Ohm's law changed ?
Rich, ag6k
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!