Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+full\s+range\s+C\s+vs\.\s+padders\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+full\s+range\s+C\s+vs\.\s+padders\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] full range C vs. padders (score: 1): Author: "Steve Flood" <flood@ixi.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:31:49 -0600; My 160m/80m/40m/20m amp design calls for a 250pF Ctune and 1500pF Cload. I notice some designs use capacitors with the full capacitance range variables, while others use lower-value variables and fix; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00416.html (6,676 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] full range C vs. padders (score: 1): Author: "Roy Koeppe" <royanjoy@ncn.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:12:40 -0600; About: My 160m/80m/40m/20m amp design calls for a 250pF Ctune and 1500pF Cload. "I notice some designs use capacitors with the full capacitance range variables, while others use lower-value variables; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00417.html (8,400 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] full range C vs. padders (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:17:43 EDT; Hi Steve, I try to use full range variable caps whenever possible. Padding both C tune and C load variables does work, however I have noticed that given the same capacitance either way changes things; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00419.html (7,117 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] full range C vs. padders (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@adelphia.net>; Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:28:36 -0400; I agree a vacuum variable is the better solution. Another possibility is to use two dissimilar caps ganged together. In your case, say a 100pf and a 150pf. You use them in parallel for 160m, the 150p; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00420.html (9,583 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]