Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+LP\s+Filter\s+Performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+LP\s+Filter\s+Performance\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] LP Filter Performance (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:59:16 -0500; I believe it was John Belrose who wrote in QST Technical Correspondence several years ago. He measured and reported that the topology as used in ham LP filters had a minimal effect on performance at; /archives//html/Amps/1999-03/msg00691.html (8,864 bytes)
2. [AMPS] LP Filter Performance (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:27:40 +0100; You need to do it with reactive loads as well, Carl. Incidentally, an elliptic function filter will tend to have minimal degradation at its poles as VSWR goes up, but I haven't seen a ham LPF of anyt; /archives//html/Amps/1999-03/msg00695.html (7,494 bytes)
3. [AMPS] LP Filter Performance (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 30 Mar 99 17:14:56 -0600; Thinking more in depth, perhaps it doesn't matter so much. At the VHF frequencies of interest where you want the atennuation to occur, any HF ham antenna is likely going to look like a HORRIBLE VSWR; /archives//html/Amps/1999-03/msg00705.html (7,881 bytes)
4. [AMPS] LP Filter Performance (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:42:26 -0500; I know that but its not easy to carry my reactive dummy load into work! Picked up one of those loads several years ago at the National Radio auction. Was used for acceptance testing of a 5KW military; /archives//html/Amps/1999-03/msg00718.html (8,845 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]