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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Pi\-L\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Pi-L (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:51:48 -0000; The future requirement for 50dB of harmonic suppression in the HF range is pretty difficult to achieve with a pi-L - the second harmonic component in the plate current is only 6dB down in Class AB1 -; /archives//html/Amps/1998-11/msg00222.html (8,114 bytes)
2. [AMPS] pi-l (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:34:00 +0100; Meeting the current FCC specs on harmonics with a pi network is at best dubious. A Pi-L gives that bit extra. To meet the requirements of ITU(R) Recommendation SM.329-7, which is supposed to be imple; /archives//html/Amps/1998-09/msg00245.html (7,649 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Pi-L (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:01:17 +0100; If I understand you correctly, Carl, you're saying that if you need a Pi-L for harmonic suppression on 160/80, you need it for the other bands. AGREED! As far as FCC interpretation goes, that's anoth; /archives//html/Amps/1998-09/msg00257.html (7,797 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]