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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Re\:\s+Poor\s+science\s*$/: 67 ]

Total 67 documents matching your query.

21. [AMPS] RE: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:07:14 -0800; This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF8710.B0BF0B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Joe, The amplifier WAS; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00217.html (16,790 bytes)
22. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 06:08:01 -0500; Don't know. There could be several causes. Isn't the Henry interlocked? Did you accidentally short the HV to ground? Coincidence is often not a reliable form of analysis. My sister-inlaw lost two hu; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00221.html (12,530 bytes)
23. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:55:33 -0700; ? Zzzzzzz -- shorting the HV to gnd could not cause this. . ? Tube type means something rather different than Manufacturer, Mr. Rauch. As one of our ''recognized amplifier experts'', I should think; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00243.html (14,551 bytes)
24. [AMPS] RE: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope); Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:26:44 -0800; Terry, I am dying to know the answer to the obvious question, after the second "big-bang" how did you proceed. Did you reconfigure the parasitic suppressors, and if so, did this fix the problem? Did; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00248.html (10,640 bytes)
25. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:22:35 -0800; TOM .... Go back and re-read please. It was stated the HV interlock was disabled ! . There was no short ! Type and brand are two different things to me ... the brand was Eimac. No it doesn't ... the; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00257.html (10,700 bytes)
26. [AMPS] RE: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:26:30 -0800; I quit opening the top cover with the amplifier turned on. The amplifier worked great other than when you wanted open it up. <g> Terry W6RU -- Original Message -- From: Michael Tope <W4EF@pacbell.net; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00258.html (11,854 bytes)
27. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: philk5pc@tyler.net (Phil Clements); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:44:43 -0600; It would be interesting to know what your filament voltage is on that amp. (at the tube pins) I am not even hinting that it had anything to do with the problem. Some amps have the filaments wired in; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00263.html (9,180 bytes)
28. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:51:22 -0800; Phil, This was about 4 years ago ... I don't remember what the voltage was or if I measured it. This was an amp I had for a ~short~ time. Terry W6RU not to the -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.co; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00264.html (9,958 bytes)
29. SV: [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: sm5ki@algonet.se (sm5ki); Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:38:39 +0000; What remains in this endless discussion is, that someone opens those broken tubes and inspects them to see what happened? Who has the will and the knowledge? de Hans -- -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.cont; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00272.html (16,342 bytes)
30. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:26:37 -0700; It is obvious that Tom is not reading posts he replies to. Is he afraid to read 'em? [chortle] Amen. Tom is trying to ignore my comments about G. W. Fyler's article on parasitic osc. in the 1935 Jou; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00285.html (11,709 bytes)
31. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:41:51 -0800; Amen. Tom is trying to ignore my comments about G. W. Fyler's article on parasitic osc. in the 1935 Journal of the Institute of Radio Engineers. Tom seemingly doesn't want to discuss his post of 28 N; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00287.html (9,126 bytes)
32. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: charles@ab7sl.com (Charles T Johnston); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:53:17 -0700; What has really enhanced this list for me is to add a kill filter for Measures and Rauch. Now I get meaningful interesting posts without the pathetic sideshow of bruised and battered egos. This is a; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00289.html (10,848 bytes)
33. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (measures); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:16:27 -0700; Other owners of 2K-4s have reported c. 5v on the filament.with 240v in. SOP . cheers , Terry -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative req; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00293.html (10,614 bytes)
34. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: Donald.Kessler@wpafb.af.mil (Kessler Donald J LtCol HQ AFMC/DOOT); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:10:56 -0500; Actually, I subscribe to this list specifically to read the banter between Rich and Tom.. I have learned a great deal from the both of them - some of it not always good, but I wouldn't have it any ot; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00296.html (12,000 bytes)
35. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:58:39 -0500; Hi Terry, I'll try to be more detailed. The keyword above is "accidentally". Let me reword my question. Does the Henry have an interlock of the type that shorts the HV to the chassis? When you defea; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00298.html (9,357 bytes)
36. [AMPS] Re: Poor Science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:23:13 -0800; Yes, it had a HV crowbar type interlock that would take the B+ to chassis ground. Before opening the top cover with high voltage applied I went into the RF deck with the amplifier disconnected from p; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00304.html (9,725 bytes)
37. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:34:48 -0600; Terry, What happened is that you changed something in your circuit. Yes! The cabinet of the amp is part of the circuit. Some sort of resonance was created by lifting the cover and hence your oscillat; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00306.html (10,882 bytes)
38. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:46:34 -0800; ON ! I of grunt to Jon .... look at what you just said .... quote "But having them keyed and moving ...." Now look at the first line of my description of what happened .... "The amplifier was in STAN; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00307.html (10,893 bytes)
39. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:53:43 -0600; My fault. I didn't read your post carefully enough! Well, if they are not keyed, I have no idea. That is weird for sure. If the tubes are in cutoff they should not conduct nor oscillate. Hmmm.... Per; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00308.html (9,801 bytes)
40. [AMPS] Re: Poor science (score: 1): Author: w6ru@lightspeed.net (Terry Gaiser - W6RU); Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:17:18 -0800; You would think not ..... Sure surprised the heck out of me. Don't know other than the plate ampmeter showed no idling current when the amp was not keyed. Terry W6RU -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contest; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00309.html (9,923 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]