Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+160M\s+PI\s+network\s+Toroidal\s+Coil\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+160M\s+PI\s+network\s+Toroidal\s+Coil\s*$/: 40 ]

Total 40 documents matching your query.

21. [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 02:02:18 -0700; However the thread is about a SB-220 which may make 1300W PEP on a good day and will never be used for RTTY at more than half that due to the wimpy PS. A pair of T200-2 toroids works fine for that as; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00088.html (9,690 bytes)
22. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:12:44 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: I agree, you don't "need" 4 gage wire, but it will be stiff enough to be self-supporting - no form needed, just a ceramic standoff at each end and maybe one; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00096.html (8,781 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:23:15 -0400; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) You are wrong regarding the loss. The loss isn't "essentially zero", unfortunately. Such a coil will likely end up having a Q between 300 and 350, perhaps lower if; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00098.html (10,642 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:58:23 +0000; Carl, The T-225/225B (there is no T225-2A) size buys you absolutely nothing over the 200 size except a few more turns of wire of the same diameter. Wrong. While the inductance per turns of the T-225; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00104.html (9,464 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 14:07:59 -0500; It probably does not matter in any event. Either the gentlemen is running CW/SSB - and in that case, whatever coil he uses will work out FB as the duty cycle won't be much of an issue - a few watts l; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00107.html (10,624 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Blaine" <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:21:06 -0500; Wow, terrible mistakes in the 2nd paragraph. Fixed here: "Or he will be running a data mode and without a lot of care and in that case, the transformer will be at the center of a self-correction even; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00110.html (11,422 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:29:59 -0400; It probably does not matter in any event. Either the gentlemen is running CW/SSB - and in that case, whatever coil he uses will work out FB as the duty cycle won't be much of an issue - a few watts; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00119.html (12,584 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:28:44 +0000; Carl, ** Youre certainly wrong all right Manfred. The slight size difference is not enough to make much difference especially when only about 1/2 the turns the core is capable of for a pratical SB-22; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00128.html (18,284 bytes)
29. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 19:02:42 +0200; Manfred, The numbers I've seen for flux density suggest that at 160m, you should be at no more than 100 gauss or 10 mT for reasonable losses and linearity.......and preferably a bit less. So even if; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00130.html (8,662 bytes)
30. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:25:21 +0000; Peter, The numbers I've seen for flux density suggest that at 160m, you should be at no more than 100 gauss or 10 mT for reasonable losses and linearity.......and preferably a bit less. Yes, that's a; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00131.html (11,482 bytes)
31. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:36:11 +0200; Manfred, it is interesting to look at the WW2 German radio equipment - obviously designed pre-1939. The use of ceramics, especially in capacitors, and iron cores is interesting, to say the least. bee; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00133.html (11,531 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Tom Thompson <tlthompson@qwest.net>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:09:42 -0600; The SI570 chip is an interesting alternative for a DDS. I have measured the phase noise at -139 dBc/Hz at 10 kHz away from the carrier. It does require a microprocessor to load the registers but it i; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00135.html (13,474 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:26:51 -0400; Ive used 7 mix cores for SS VFO's that are rock solid. Dont use the smallest core you can squeeze the smallest wire on and use a Hi-C circuit. They sure put out a clean signal on the SA compared to D; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00136.html (13,012 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:53:24 +0000; Peter, it is interesting to look at the WW2 German radio equipment - obviously designed pre-1939. The use of ceramics, especially in capacitors, and iron cores is interesting, to say the least. I hav; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00138.html (11,338 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>; Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:38:13 +0200; Manfred British ones? In my country they aren't valid anyway - and I wish there were any at all! < Actually Manfred, your government has signed up to them! I'm referring to the International Radio Re; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00141.html (9,168 bytes)
36. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Karl-Arne Markström <sm0aom@telia.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:54:01 +0200 (CEST); The ITU-RR:s have status of international law and treaty, as they form an annex to the Telecommunications Convention. Most countries have them "incorporated by reference" in their national rules and; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00143.html (9,875 bytes)
37. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>; Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:07:09 +0200; Karl-Arne, Manfred, In the UK, the old amateur licence did require 'adherence to any relevant international telecommunications convention', i.e. the RRs and any ECC Decisions (ECC - Electronic Commun; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00144.html (8,996 bytes)
38. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:36:16 +0000; Peter, and all, Actually Manfred, your government has signed up to them! I'm referring to the International Radio Regulations, published by the ITU, and signed up to, by all the participants in a Wor; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00150.html (13,265 bytes)
39. Re: [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:18:12 -0400; Manfred I'm not even aware of those Radio Regulations. I suppose you mean the British ones? In my country they aren't valid anyway - and I wish there were any at all! < Actually Manfred, your governm; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00152.html (10,392 bytes)
40. [Amps] 160M PI network Toroidal Coil (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:28:09 -0700; Carl, Let's do a real, practical design, to find out how much difference there is. The exercise might be illustrative to people actually still building tube amps and considering the use of toroids. M; /archives//html/Amps/2013-10/msg00176.html (15,375 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2]