Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:steve@karinya.net: 479 ]

Total 479 documents matching your query.

341. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:24:00 +0000
The CorsairII has what appears to be a Bridge-Tee diplexer between the mixer and the Norton amplifier - R23, R24, L5, L6, C15, C16. However, the values of L5 and C16 look very odd. I don't know the v
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00136.html (7,860 bytes)

342. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:28:17 +0000
That should have been: "....... you'd expect around 5.6uH to resonate with C15 at 9MHz" Steve G3TXQ I don't know the value of L6 (part# 21056), but you'd expect around 6.6uH to resonate with C15 at 9
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00138.html (8,244 bytes)

343. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:13:16 +0000
Jerry, It's yet another error on the schematic! I lifted L5 this morning and measured it: 330nH, not 3.3mH; it resonates with C16 (1000pF) close to 9MHz. L9 and L10 on that same schematic are similar
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00146.html (9,350 bytes)

344. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:45:55 +0000
Jerry, Both the L and the C in the diplexer parallel arm are fixed value; so low Q sounds good, given the tolerance issue :) However the L in the series arm of the diplexer is adjustable, and the boo
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00148.html (9,297 bytes)

345. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:10:22 +0000
Simulating the TT diplexer I see just a couple of S11 excursions worse than -18dB (SWR=1.3:1), at 10MHz and 8MHz. Steve G3TXQ Both the L and the C in the diplexer parallel arm are fixed value; so low
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00149.html (9,246 bytes)

346. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:34:22 +0000
Barry, I can't say for certain - I didn't lift them to measure! They are the same style of component as L5, and clearly the values can't be 8.2mH as shown. It seems likely the same sort of error has
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00151.html (9,531 bytes)

347. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:13:35 +0000
A few calculations suggest that L9 and L10 *must* be 8.8uH, but I'll take a look and check the board. I agree that L11 and L12 must also be wrong - they obviously form some tuning/matching function.
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00154.html (9,997 bytes)

348. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:36:44 +0000
I took another look at the CorsairII RF Mixer board (80987) inductors this morning: L1, L2, L3, L4, L7, L8: Green, radial body, marked 101. Measured as 100uH L5: Axial body marked Orange-Orange-Silve
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00169.html (9,364 bytes)

349. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:41:28 +0000
One of the problems is that TT are not consistent in the way they label components. For example, on the 80987 board schematic all the RF blocking chokes are labelled 100mH; on all the other schematic
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00185.html (10,299 bytes)

350. [TenTec] CorsairII sidetone modification (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:37:25 +0000
I finally decided I needed to do something about the "raspy" sidetone on my CorsairII. Being a lazy guy I was looking for a simple and easy modification that made a significant improvement with minim
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00200.html (11,053 bytes)

351. Re: [TenTec] CorsairII sidetone modification (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:41:38 +0000
Forgot to say: be sure to disconnect the radio from the PSU when doing the mod - you're very close to those mains terminals on the AF Gain/On-Off control. 73, Steve G3TXQ ____________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00201.html (7,668 bytes)

352. Re: [TenTec] CorsairII sidetone modification (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:44:55 +0000
That's correct - you need to choose your favourite sidetone frequency and pick the L&C appropriately. I don't see it as much of a limitation - I don't think I've altered my sidetone pitch in the 20+
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00207.html (8,585 bytes)

353. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:33:12 +0000
@ Barry N1EU, Hope you don't mind me pointing out a small error in the "RF/IF Design" section of your Corsair II Wiki site. "Don't know about the Omni V and VI, but the "attenuator" switch on the Cor
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00254.html (9,405 bytes)

354. Re: [TenTec] MRF458 transistors (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:14:57 +0000
Yes, I picked up 4 of them from RF Parts a couple of months ago. With them and a complete spare PA module I should be OK for a while :) Steve G3TXQ On 22/03/2013 14:07, Ralph wrote: Just a follow-up
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00295.html (7,385 bytes)

355. Re: [TenTec] MRF458 transistors (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:50:11 +0000
I measured 12v p/p at the output of the low level amp on the Corsair II on 40m for 100W out of the radio. Into a 50 Ohm load that would equate to 360mW. Steve G3TXQ __________________________________
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00297.html (7,749 bytes)

356. Re: [TenTec] Need help with corsair ii (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:43:45 +0000
I just made a couple of measurements on my Corsair II: Pins 3 and 5 of U2 are at "mid-rail" - about 4v. That's what you would expect with the Reg supply being about 8v, and a mid-rail reference for U
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00377.html (11,028 bytes)

357. Re: [TenTec] Antenna measurements (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:14:45 +0100
That's correct - it's charge acceleration and deceleration which causes radiation. If you take a long wire and terminate it in its characteristic impedance it will radiate - there doesn't need to be
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-04/msg00215.html (10,722 bytes)

358. Re: [TenTec] Built in SWR meter bannans (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:50:01 +0100
What Rick reported is perfectly sound! If the currents in each of the bifilar pair are balanced - that is they are equal magnitude and opposite phase - there will be no net flux in the core. If they
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-04/msg00231.html (11,878 bytes)

359. Re: [TenTec] Antenna measurements (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:26:22 +0100
Stuart, Can you give us the exact Kraus quote, or a reference, to see the context in which he made it? "Although a charge moving with uniform velocity along a straight conductor does not radiate, a c
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-04/msg00240.html (10,347 bytes)

360. Re: [TenTec] Antenna measurements (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:24:04 +0100
Stuart, As yet, I've been unable to find anything remotely like that in my 3rd edition; but I'll carry on looking :) A simple "test question" for me would be: "does an infinitely long straight wire (
/archives//html/TenTec/2013-04/msg00250.html (11,305 bytes)

Current List: 341 - 360
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
This search system is powered by Namazu