Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Is\s+screen\s+potential\s+important\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Is\s+screen\s+potential\s+important\?\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:52:16 -0700; In a G2DAF amplifier, screen potential wanders from zero to approx. max. Some say that screen potential can wander about with no serious consequences. Please consider the constant-current curves for; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00941.html (8,421 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (Lamb); Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:06:43 -0800; Hi Rich: I thought you were against the G2DAF amplifier. Now you go and publish data that supports it! The first part of your statement is incorrect. "Some say that screen potential can wander about; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00943.html (10,825 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:34:26 +0100; It doesn't wander. It follows the rf envelope. But screen voltage is set by rf (=grid) voltage. If +10 grid gives +1500 screen it won't suddenly or randomly give 500V screen instead. The time constan; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00952.html (9,341 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:45:41 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> The ''envelope'' consists of RF cycles. However, RF can not exist across the screen's RF bypass capacitor. In other words, the grid sees RF and the screen can not. The char; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00953.html (11,283 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:39:07 +0100; To: <amps@contesting.com> Like I said, it follows the *envelope* No, but neither can the rf drive from a SSB exciter go from zero to full in one cycle. The screen charging circuit can take the screen; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00982.html (13,377 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:27:11 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> To: <amps@contesting.com> This is precisely whan happens. The first cycle out of the exciter can be anything up to the limit of the Final Unit. I disagree. It takes 100uS o; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00988.html (15,451 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:35:26 +0100; snipped for brevity in Surely not in practice. There is some rise time in the envelope - during that time, the amplitude of the rf cycles gradually increases from zero to the intended level. The enve; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00990.html (11,690 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:39:53 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> This is what my oscilloscope indicates. The oscilloscope indicates that this is not the case. The risetime is wholly dependant on the operating frequency. [chortle] - Rich.; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00992.html (10,471 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:53:59 +0100; snipped for brevity The envelope risetime of a SSB signal generated at 455kHz is different from one generated at 10.7MHz? If the risetime is different, is the bandwidth different? Steve -- FAQ on WWW; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00999.html (9,624 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:21:30 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> no - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures. end -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01001.html (9,903 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:30:36 -0800; snipped for brevity new I'm not disagreeing that regulated screen makes for good linearity, and I won't be surprised if the DAF system turns out to be relatively poor if I ever get the chance to do s; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01057.html (11,253 bytes)
12. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: rfamps@ic24.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:41:52 -0800; snipped for brevity new I'm not disagreeing that regulated screen makes for good linearity, and I won't be surprised if the DAF system turns out to be relatively poor if I ever get the chance to do s; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01074.html (10,805 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 03:37:47 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> Only with voice modulation. With two-tone modulation, the DAF circuit can be fairly linear with minimal grid current. . Like about 100F with a trickle-charger? As I recall,; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01075.html (12,127 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 04:21:07 -0700; Not until the screen bypass C becomes sufficiently charged. Another problem is keeping the screen bypass C from mostly discharging on soft syllables. The semi-obvious solution is to Not Allow the sc; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01076.html (10,365 bytes)
15. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:14:27 +0100; But if this is 5 time constants, it's still far faster than the rise time of the envelope. What current gain? As over at least part of the input cycle, there's no input current, current gain is inapp; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01078.html (9,781 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: itr@nanoteq.co.za (Ian Roberts); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:31:16 +0200; Seems to me that this beast will do just fine on 100% duty cycle modes: AM, FM and SSB-SSTV, SSB-RTTY, SSB-PSK, but query it's CW and speech-SSB performance? What was it originally mean to do? Ian, Z; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01079.html (10,814 bytes)
17. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (Lamb); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:32:53 -0800; "In order to achieve linear amplification, current gain must be constant at All signal levels. Screen potential has a large effect on current gain. At 33% of normal screen volts, an 8171 exhibits 1/4; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01080.html (10,104 bytes)
18. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (Lamb); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 06:42:37 -0800; "Not until the screen bypass C becomes sufficiently charged. Another problem is keeping the screen bypass C from mostly discharging on soft syllables." Rich, this is not a problem, except for you. It; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01081.html (9,649 bytes)
19. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:27:46 -0700; CW would likely be ok. SSB-voice plus all the rest. // At the time when Thornley wrote the article, the 6AS7/6080, and 6336 low-Mu triodes were being produced. Such tubes were quite useful for build; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01082.html (11,437 bytes)
20. [AMPS] Is screen potential important? (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 08:27:47 -0700; ok indeed double trouble proportion to the With any tetrode, to obtain linear suds, one can vary the grid v. Or one can vary the screen v. -- but Not at the same time. . In other words, When the gri; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg01083.html (10,659 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]