As you point out, the inductive reactance of a plate choke drops with frequency. So that normally you spec the unit (inductance wise) to deliver X amount of henries so that at your lowest freq of interest it is sufficiently large to do it's job (i.e., provide an impedance load for the anode to work into).

Once you have that pinned down (at your lowest freq of interest)... the impedance created by the inductive load increases with frequency and can become substantially large (much larger say than a chosen plate resistor value for a particular application).

I think you have all the basics down pat... including the disadvantage of a plate choke being far more expensive than either a CCS or a pure resistor load for the anode.

msl

What sort of self resonance frequency to typical plate load chokes have? you can of course restrict your answer to those which you have experience with.

Just to go into another of the downfalls of inductive loading is that once self resonance happens, increasing the frequency yeilds a lower impedance, since the capacitive effects dominate.

And the other unanswered questions, like where should one switch from your low signal/near-infinite load model to the large signal/power set of 'rules'?

Are you going to address any of this stuff? Or are you just going to attempt to 'simplify' and 'improve' it? I would think that a more detailed explanation of the strengths and pitfalls TX loading would make every one of your points more clear, and the direction you seek to improve visible.
cheers,
Douglas

Doug... your not going to succeed in trolling me into a technical debate with you. Not even worth your tyring to... it won't happen.

The net if full of information on plate loading chokes, the theory of their operation, and examples of their use. On the bottlehead site alone is a wealth of info on this subject and on parafeed.

I've only recommended a plate choke as an alternative to a CCS. Being careful to point out the advantages and disadvantages of each in my inital post in this thread.

Plate chokes have been used in hundreds of circuits and applications without the fridge blowing up or smoking. I say... give it a try with an appropiately designed plate choke. Bottlehead uses plate chokes routinely in the output stages of their amps, Gordon Rankin of Wavenlength audio uses plate chokes in several of his parafeed amps...heck, even Western Electric used plate chokes in the (I forget now) first or second amp they produced commercially. why would I want to argue with you about the technical merits\demerits of this approach?

I'm only recommending that folks consider giving it a try... and that it MIGHT sound better to them.

msl

Don't worry Mike, I won't be arguing anything with you. Certainly not your pseudo science or theories like you created to explain how the simple wind EX0-173 is the 'perfect phase splitter', and why we had to perfect it....(if you don't remember that particular one, I'll re-publish it for you )

MQ: Plate chokes have been used in hundreds of circuits and applications without the fridge blowing up or smoking.

I don't recall clamining any such thing. Actually, I did not suggest even an amp built with them would blow up or smoke. It is certainly a risk if one is not careful of CCS design.

MQ: I say... give it a try with an appropiately designed plate choke. Bottlehead uses plate chokes routinely in the output stages of their amps, Gordon Rankin of Wavenlength audio uses plate chokes in several of his parafeed amps...

I have no issue with appropriately designed plate chokes. Please describe what constitutes "apropriately designed" so that one might be able to recognize such a unit. Comming from a manufacturer who claims design capability, this should be no big deal.

I have heard what a circuit built with inappropriately designed and expensive Iron sounds like. Even spent time helping a few of their owners to tear it all out in favour of the Guinevere-style CCS. No need to specify the maker, it is not an important bit of information for this discussion.

Remember it was you who suggested changing the design, and when faced with questions that required your understandig of how the original works, or what does your proposed modification do, you haven't a clue as to an answer. If you are just trying to get folks to buy MQ Iron, just say so...

Please quit accusing me of trying to argue with you. This is a civilized discussion, and nobody is out to get you. Actually, the only person who can truly 'get you' is your self.
cheers,
Douglas

Please write to me off-forum, I wanted to write to you a few days ago and realized I don't have your E-Mail address. I think Colin gave it to me, but I've been so busy I misplaced it.

As best I can tell, Mike is merely suggesting an alternative approach to one part of the G, which, if memory serves, was a group build project taken up by a DIY community, which is normally open to all sorts of variations.

Your tone strikes me as rather combative through this thread. Whether you have an ongoing beef with Mike or dislike mods to your design or both I don't know, but I'd bet no one else here is interested in it. ART was formed to provide a civilized alternative to the edgy and sometimes downright rude "discussion" found elsewhere. This doesn't seem to fit that mold.

Why not just let the experimenters experiment without all the vitrole?

I helped him once, and he has taken up a Stalinist, revisionist position on admitting it. It is no big deal, yet he choses to make it one. I'd rather have helped Uncle Joe, it would have been safer and more profitable for the world as a whole.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, and I look forward to discussing it with you.
cheers,
Douglas

From what I could see **in this thread**, he made a harmless, possibly interesting parts sub suggestion. I don't have the time or the inclination, (as I just told you in the private off-line debate you started), to investigate your entire history with Mike.

Did I get back on a different bus? This was an audio hobbyist, DIYer kinda place last I checked. Now there are comparison's between one member's debate/discussion style and Stalin's. A bit much, really.

I'll take my leave now as this is getting silly in a sadly all too non-Monty Pythonish kind of way.

The critical difference is that Stalin *WAS* in charge...rather than only thinking he was.

This is a repeat performance on Mike's part. Last time it happened that anybody called him out and said he was wrong, it got labeled 'Jute War'.
cheers,
Douglas