[R-390] Ray’s Receiver Article

[Perry Sandeen]

GM list,

Thanks to the generosity of several members I’ve received the Osterwald and Felton articles. 
Thanks to all who helped.

After reading Ray’s article carefully I think there is an obvious but overlooked explanation for
his numbers.  Let’s look at this logically. (AKA "the duck" test).  Mounting soapbox.

First let me step back  and make a couple of observations.  Roy is no newcomer to this.  He has
been "around the block" more than once.  Second, he’d have nothing to gain and everything to lose
by purposely creating "vaporware" numbers.  

For several years I worked at Hallicrafters in Chicago at the plant that you see part of in their
old ads.  Being in quality control my job took me everywhere in  their facilities.  I also have
been to one of the others where the SR series were being aligned.  They had some of the neatest
copper double-screened rooms in existence.  Major envy. 

Hallicrafters, like other name manufactures (HP equipment was on Gary Powers U2) produced a bunch
of one off or a low production volume of 5 to 10 units.  One such that I saw was a frequency
synthesizer that used miniature solid copper co-ax with SMA connectors going to metal encased
modules.  These inner workings were inside IIRC another shielded exterior case.  What it was used
for I have no idea but it cost Uncle a bundle.

So what does this have to do with Ray?  Glad you asked.  To get accurate measurements down in the
sub-micro-volt range one needs test equipment, shielded cables, and shielded  test rooms that are
way beyond any amateurs budget.   Although Ray probably used fine test equipment with great care,
I firmly believe that somehow, someway there was some blowby  or circuitous leakage that proved
again that Murphy sides with the hidden flaw.  It’s the only answer that makes since to me.  

OK, so what if the numbers don’t  math up to Bloatmans constant comment tea or whatever?  
Remember all those long math posts in the past about peak to peak, RMS and diode rectification
during the "discussions" involving ballast tube work arounds?  Correct in theory ONLY.  Total
Baloney in the real world.  I refer doubters to "Malvinos Transistor Approximations" which deals
with real life semi-conductor design.  Also the rectified voltage will vary some in relation to
the current passing versus the diodes rating.  For example:  you need 5 amps DC at say, 12 volts. 
A 35 amp bridge  rectifier will give you more output than if you used a 5 amp rated bridge at the
same rated voltage.

Let’s graciously challenge numbers that don’t make sense to us but we should refrain from
skewering individuals who are attempting to make good contributions and improvements to our hobby.
 Off Soapbox Quack Quack. Regards, Perrier














__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com