Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] Let down

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] Let down
From: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:22:57 +0200
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
It´s the same here.
In our latest CQDL I could read on two pages how a balun probably should not
be wound.
I wonder how many now must learn it the hard way.

73
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Peter Chadwick

All these years, I've been believing people like Tom, Carl and Ian and even
myself that the SWR on  a tranismission line, is, other than the change
caused by losses, independent of length. Now I read in the QRP column of the
October CQ that you should trim your transmission line length for minimum
SWR. 
Now, if it's in CQ, it must be right, OK?
The same edition has a one tube CW rig with no mention of the fact that a
Tri tet oscillator having the cathode tuned to thw crystal frequency when
the plate  is so tuned is a notorious production of a 'rock crusher' signal
- the crystals  don't last too long.
Now, if it's in CQ, it must be right, OK?
But people like Tom and Carl and even Rich Measures never said so!!
OK, so sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....
73
Peter G3RZP
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>