- 101. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Tue, 12 May 98 21:25:05 -0800
- My guess is that there will Never be enough evidence for some. . For example, on 28 Nov., 1996, Mr. Rauch proposed that we calculate the parameters of a parasitic-suppressor that used a resistance-w
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00195.html (13,437 bytes)
- 102. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 98 01:22:18 -0800
- To: <amps@contesting.com> I am one whose pals would throw me to the wolves if I refuted AC Circuit Analysis. He asked a question. I gave him my answer. Can you look in the KN6DV archive? Post it on a
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00197.html (13,078 bytes)
- 103. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:44:44 +0100
- I think we'd better leave your higher-order IMD exactly as it is... 73 from Ian G3SEK -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: am
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00199.html (7,844 bytes)
- 104. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:00:03 +0000
- To: <amps@contesting.com> For those sick of name calling, skip to the end. There is a technical point Rich made that plainly indicates he believes the best suppressor is no suppressor at all. For tho
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00201.html (14,705 bytes)
- 105. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: Will KN6DV" <kn6dv@contesting.com (Will KN6DV)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:33:15 +0100
- --Original Message-- From: Tom Rauch <10eesfams2mi@mass1-pop.pmm.mci.net> To: Rich Measures <measures@vc.net>; amps@contesting.com <amps@contesting.com> To: <amps@contesting.com> Date: Wednesday, May
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00202.html (10,294 bytes)
- 106. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 98 11:40:12 -0800
- To: <amps@contesting.com> I could not find such a statement, Mr. Rauch. . . If this was my position, we would have seen eye-to-eye on your design decision to use no VHF-suppressor whatsoever in the A
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00204.html (18,619 bytes)
- 107. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 22:47:55 EDT
- I have never said any suppressor is a cure all, yours, mine or whatever. So quit trying to twist words again Rich. How did we get to parasitics again? You have got a one track mind. I am talking abou
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00210.html (10,845 bytes)
- 108. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 22:47:55 EDT
- Explain your idea of real Rich; please. I believe that Tom explained it fairly well. BTW welcome back Tom. I would also add that every amp is different and you cant sit down with a paper analysis tha
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00211.html (11,751 bytes)
- 109. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 98 22:04:52 -0500
- I think we got back on this subject when discussing our DOE of the amplifiers and how the output Pi-network looks to a VHF signal. So if we are concerned about VHF signals, we are concerned with par
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00213.html (9,145 bytes)
- 110. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden)
- Date: Wed, 13 May 98 22:16:58 -0500
- Based on my knowledge of filter designs (I sell high power filters), the filter does not "abosrb" energy outside of it's passband. Rather it rejects it. If you do a network analyzer plot of a filter
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00215.html (10,513 bytes)
- 111. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: w7iuv@axtek.com (Larry Molitor)
- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 03:14:18 +0100
- John, I am glad to see that you took my post as it was intended.... If my post only succeded in prying loose another of your "Three-man-Tetrode" stories, it was worth the effort! I love these. John,
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00250.html (15,550 bytes)
- 112. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: w4eto@rmii.com (Richard W. Ehrhorn)
- Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:13:27 -0600
- Rich & interested others... Observations, opinions, caveats, and a question... 1) Ran into Tom at Dayton and after reading all the flak here was surprised to find that he's still a pretty decent guy
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00327.html (14,249 bytes)
- 113. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden)
- Date: Mon, 18 May 98 20:56:56 -0500
- Dick, GREAT posting. Really good! He's very brilliant. And has the patience to teach some of us knuckleheads (like me) a thing or two! Agreed. Again, agreed. This was one of my original conclusions a
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00328.html (11,916 bytes)
- 114. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Mon, 18 May 98 22:32:12 -0800
- However, adding a bit of X to make one's calculations come out more favourably, undoubtedly gives one a leg up. Most amplifier builders use Eimac's definition. In a Heath SB-220 the peak anode poten
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00332.html (12,289 bytes)
- 115. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 07:16:51 +0100
- Hey, no fair, no fair!!! 73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book' 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.demon.co.uk/g3sek -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00343.html (8,946 bytes)
- 116. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: Will KN6DV" <kn6dv@contesting.com (Will KN6DV)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:48:10 +0100
- Arlen and others, sorry about that. All is fixed, all parts are vavailble and unsencorced, I just captured as the debate went along. Thanks 73 Will, K6NDV (ex KN6DV) -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contest
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00347.html (9,341 bytes)
- 117. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: Will KN6DV" <kn6dv@contesting.com (Will KN6DV)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:52:57 +0100
- Arlen and others, sorry about that. All is fixed, all parts are available and uncensored, I just captured as the debate went along. Thanks 73 Will, K6NDV (ex KN6DV) http://www.as.net/~kn6dv -- FAQ on
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00348.html (9,411 bytes)
- 118. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: jono@webspun.com (Jon Ogden)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 98 09:58:52 -0500
- The 200 nH is inductance for the anode lines to the blocking cap were a guess by Ian. So the inductance is less. It still doesn't change the mathematical principles. Also, as we have discussed recen
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00349.html (9,250 bytes)
- 119. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:43:06 EDT
- Dick, give me a mail address, I'll send you a complete SB-220 tank coil and switch....I'll pick one with only a minor arc! 73 Carl KM1H On Mon, 18 May 1998 18:13:27 -0600 "Richard W. Ehrhorn" <w4eto@
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00352.html (16,629 bytes)
- 120. [AMPS] Re: (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Tue, 19 May 98 16:05:10 -0800
- him good I don't think it will hold up on a Z-analyzer. Rich... R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@cont
- /archives//html/Amps/1998-05/msg00363.html (9,322 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu