Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+An\s+IM\s+and\s+power\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+An\s+IM\s+and\s+power\s+question\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] An IM and power question (score: 1): Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 04:55:49 -0400; We have been taught to tune up at the power we plan on using, but that is more for efficiency than anything else IIRC. But now when we are looking at power out and not efficency, there are after all; /archives//html/Amps/2010-04/msg00369.html (6,811 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] An IM and power question (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:11:46 -0400; Ok Roger, I will bite. :>) We tune our amps for linearity not for efficiency. If we tuned for best efficiency we would tune them for most power out at the point that average SSB is prevalent. In the; /archives//html/Amps/2010-04/msg00393.html (10,029 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] An IM and power question (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:43:33 -0400; I forgot to mention that there is an article by Bill Orr "rating tubes for linear amplifier service" that was published in Ham radio magazine March 1971, page 51 that deals with IM products at differ; /archives//html/Amps/2010-04/msg00395.html (11,738 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]