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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Ferrite\s+Core\s+for\s+160M\s+PI\s+Output\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] Ferrite Core for 160M PI Output (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:20:24 +0000; Jim, Not right. 61 is good for absorption in the UHF range, and for relatively low loss applications on HF. It works great as balun, for example in the form of an FT-240-61 core with 12 turns of RG40; /archives//html/Amps/2017-06/msg00208.html (8,809 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Ferrite Core for 160M PI Output (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:04:58 -0700; Not right. 61 is good for absorption in the UHF range, and for relatively low loss applications on HF. It works great as balun, for example in the form of an FT-240-61 core with 12 turns of RG400 on; /archives//html/Amps/2017-06/msg00209.html (13,000 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Ferrite Core for 160M PI Output (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:11:16 +0000; Going back to the original question about ferrite for a Pi network tank: I had always heard that powdered iron was better in a resonant MF or HF circuit because of better Q, so I am wondering why the; /archives//html/Amps/2017-06/msg00210.html (7,651 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Ferrite Core for 160M PI Output (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.qozzy.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:32:01 -0400; Going back to the original question about ferrite for a Pi network tank: I had always heard that powdered iron was better in a resonant MF or HF circuit because of better Q, so I am wondering why th; /archives//html/Amps/2017-06/msg00211.html (8,050 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]