Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Snap\-on\s+RFI\s+suppression\s+core\s+size\s+vs\s+cable\s+size\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 16:27:24 -0400
I suspect this is a stupid question but I am not finding a concise answer or I am not recognizing it when I see it. How important is it to fit the I.D. of snap-on RFI suppression ferrites to the size
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00033.html (7,940 bytes)

2. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: "chuck.gooden" <chuck.gooden@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:40:36 -0500
Torid cores with multiple turn are more effective.  K9YC has written a very good paper about this.  It can be found on his website.  The file is publications/rfi-ham. Chuck Gooden - K9LC I suspect th
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00034.html (8,159 bytes)

3. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:16:56 -0700
Thanks Chuck. A couple of points of clarification. First, the link to the tutorial is k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf Second, there's a much more recent piece on identifying, finding, and killing RF noise that
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00035.html (11,022 bytes)

4. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Dave Cole <dave@nk7z.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:31:58 -0700
Just re-read your paper Jim, very useful, thanks again! Every time I re-read it, I get something new. 73s and thanks, Dave NK7Z http://www.nk7z.net k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf Second, there's a much more re
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00036.html (11,623 bytes)

5. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 19:06:23 -0400
I have re-read both RFI-Ham.pdf and KillingReceiveNoise.pdf twice each over the last couple of days. Great work which I refer to frequently, but neither really answers my question. Suppose I am tryin
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00037.html (8,476 bytes)

6. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Jack Shirley N8DX <jcshirle@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 20:59:35 -0400
I guess it would be too practical to take a VNA and measure Z with different IDs as you mention? N8DX _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00038.html (9,148 bytes)

7. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 19:34:01 -0700
Suppose I am trying to use common mode chokes to eliminate noise on a conductor at 144 MHz. Suppose the conductor diameter is 1/8 inch. This is VHF so we are not talking about multiple turns - just a
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00039.html (10,119 bytes)

8. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins" <k1ttt@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:12:38 -0500
I scanned a few papers this morning that talk about things like the ferrite window fill factor and variations of inductance with wire size... then pulled out my vna and a ferrite to try a quick exper
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00040.html (11,678 bytes)

9. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:34:34 -0500
Can you now do the same test, but see how the value changes with each turn in the core? IE: loop it through 1 time measure 2x etc. Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.c
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00041.html (12,281 bytes)

10. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: Gedas <w8bya@mchsi.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:25:28 -0400
Hi Joe. About a year ago I did just what you guys are talking about. I had purchased a whole bunch of assorted split bead cores of various sizes and shapes off Amazon. No specs with them but the pric
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00042.html (15,584 bytes)

11. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:37:40 -0400
Thank you Dave! This seems to confirm my gut feeling. I suspect if the ferrite were almost solid with just a small hole through the center (just larger than the wire) Z (or more importantly equivalen
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00043.html (12,483 bytes)

12. Re: [RFI] Snap-on RFI suppression core size vs cable size (score: 1)
Author: N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 10:47:34 -0400
On 08/20/2017 10:34 PM, Jim Brown wrote: One turn will work fine. Although I haven't done any measurements to confirm it, I wouldn't worry about the loose fit. Check out this data sheet and note the
/archives//html/RFI/2017-08/msg00044.html (9,496 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu