Mail Archive Search: <+from:jono@enteract.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:jono@enteract.com: 615 ]

Total 615 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:30:47 -0500; Bob, I forgot to mention yet another thing to consider when using a 4-1K. When running at high anode voltages, the output imedance of the tube begins to get rather large. If memory serves me it's on; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00213.html (9,860 bytes)
2. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:40:27 -0500; Also, Bob, I forgot to mention: Many of the guys run the tube at lower voltages. And many of the old designs floating around have it running at 3 to 4 KV. However, most of those old designs were base; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00207.html (8,348 bytes)
3. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:36:30 -0500; Bob, It's a great tube when run in grounded-grid service. You'll need a lot of juice. I run about 5500 volts under load (6KV idle) and get legal limit with less than 100 Watts. It is a tough tube to; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00206.html (8,509 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Time to eat crow (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:35:41 -0500; OK, I guess I need to go back and take some remedial physics courses. It is time for me to eat some crow. I claimed that even a superconductor has some finite amount of loss. I have been re-educated; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00072.html (6,974 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:17:08 -0500; ambient. Phil, Answer this question please. At 1500 Watts, your RMS RF voltage is 273.86 Volts. So why do you say that RG-58 is only good for 350 Watts. Even the crappy stuff you mention is capable; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00070.html (10,046 bytes)
6. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:09:07 -0500; ? Superconductors exist, Jon No duh, Rich. One of my former customers manufactures super conducting RF filters. But superconductors are not lossless. They only have minimal loss. It is as impossible; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00069.html (7,948 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:18:36 -0500; output, You are probabably OK. One thing where you need to be careful though with RF voltages is that you need to look at the peak voltage instead of just the RMS voltages. The 194 volts you give is; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00066.html (9,308 bytes)
8. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:57:11 -0500; And one last point I forgot to add. Even if you DID have a coax with ideal conductors (lossless) and it used a real world (not lossless) dielectric, you would still have attenuation of the signal do; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00057.html (8,114 bytes)
9. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:45:01 -0500; I did't speak clear enough. The RF current flows on the SURFACE (depending on skin depth) of the center conductor and the inner surface of the shield. When I spoke of "RF energy" I mean an an RF fie; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00056.html (9,724 bytes)
10. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:46:27 -0500; I don't agree with your ending statement. In a coaxial cable the RF does not travel down the center conductor - at least it shouldn't. In reality, a TEM0 (if I remember my mode designations correct); /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00051.html (9,240 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:40:53 -0500; I agree with you on this, Rich. Sure there is a "maximum power handling" capability and that may be specified usually as a CW rating. IMHO, one of the real numbers you need to look for is voltage bre; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00050.html (8,982 bytes)
12. [AMPS] New Call for me! (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:05:41 -0500; Hi all, I haven't posted to AMPS in quite a while as my "off air" time has been occupied with home remodeling instead of internet stuff. Anyhow, I have a new call. Those of you who have been around k; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00031.html (7,064 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Re: G2DAF - Hearing is Believing (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 06:32:41 -0600; It's probably that they were running at max processor! I had one guy come to me on 15 and tell me I was really wide (like 10 Kcs down). I back off my processor and mike gain and he said my signal imp; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00985.html (7,832 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Re: New G2DAF amplifier information (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:14:30 -0600; Yeah, really. MOST of the clowns that hang out on 80 meters all splatter. Rich's friend probably had his compressor cranked all the way up to the max. All Rich says is he heard splatter. Well if spla; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00972.html (10,567 bytes)
15. [AMPS] G2DAF - Hearing is Believing (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:54:44 -0600; OK, To those of you who's blinders and paradigms of the way you think things should be keep you from seeing objective reality outside the box, listen up. I don't care how much theory one says about a; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00971.html (7,862 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Filter cap mounting (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:48:02 -0600; The cap bank in my HV power supply has an interesting way of doing this. I can't claim credit since the guy who originally built the amp (I REBUILT the RF deck) did the HV stuff and I did very little; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00684.html (7,957 bytes)
17. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:24:07 -0600; Agreed. The FT-847 is a nice rig for what you pay for. However, its DSP certainly introduces digital noise that you don't get with real filters. And seeing as how those numbers that were posted show; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00648.html (9,543 bytes)
18. [AMPS] Receiver performance (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:03:02 -0600; Someone mentioned these tests on another reflector I am on. I don't think they are at all accurate. They show an FT-1000D with about the same performance as an FT-847. Trust me, I have both and the F; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00620.html (8,721 bytes)
19. SV: SV: [AMPS]Plate choke at the antenna end instead? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:54:13 -0600; Then you have other problems. Your tank circuit then has DC on it. This means that the voltage ratings on your caps needs to be very high. That's the first that I can think of. 73, Jon KE9NA -- Jon O; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00619.html (8,565 bytes)
20. [AMPS] Rocky Point effects (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:02:21 -0600; You know the answer. Tell us. ??????? I'm a person of faith. But my faith and ham radio amplifiers have nothing to do with each other. So why would I bring it into this thread? What's ur point? Why n; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00561.html (11,177 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]