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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Re\:\s+skin\s+depth\s+suppression\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net); Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:56:49 +0000; Hi Carl, Here's another case where mixing models can mislead us. I'm talking about changing the material in the inductor, and the effect on VHF impedance of the entire L/C combination when viewed as; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00205.html (9,198 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: philk5pc@connect.net (Phil Clements); Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:48:45 -0500; Hi, Tom, and fellow "Ampers!" I brought up in another group several months ago the Henry suppressor that is used on the current 8K-Ultra and other models. I thought it was an ingenious idea, and I st; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00206.html (9,605 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Sat, 24 May 97 09:48:03 -0700; (the eagerness of the skeptics/naysayers to proffer fabricated scientific evidence during the vhf parasitics debate never ceased to amaze me, Phil--and provided motivation for me to carry on--even th; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00208.html (11,212 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: philk5pc@connect.net (Phil Clements); Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 13:26:24 -0500; To: <amps@contesting.com> snip.... tubes/configurations. the anode "resistorless" snip..... (((73))) Phil, K5PC -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com A; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00209.html (10,633 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Sat, 24 May 97 12:03:04 -0700; To: <amps@contesting.com> True. However, Wes' comment about the likely licking duties of my secretary appeared to discount Wes' evaluation by about two cents. . . . OTOH, if Mr. Rauch turns out to be; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00210.html (9,043 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net); Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 09:19:01 +0000; That's right Phil, it is a good idea. Chrome over copper would give even more slope with frequency. To obtain higher slope in the AL-572 (it uses four 572B tubes) and AL-1200, as well as some other; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00211.html (11,190 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 21:41:46 EDT; Yeah Phil, the idea sounds good but the 8K was taken off the market by Henry due to stability problems. The improved version was just released.....do they use the same suppressor? 73....Carl KM1H --; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00214.html (8,032 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: philk5pc@connect.net (Phil Clements); Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 21:52:07 -0500; I physically observed the "new" 8K's being assembled at the factory. The "stability problem" was mechanical. The alignment of the contacts on the solenoids that select the doorknob tuning and loading; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00216.html (8,858 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 10:11:35 EDT; On Sun, 25 May 1997 21:52:07 -0500 Phil Clements <philk5pc@connect.net> writes: Very good info Phil. Is the "old" Henry socket the same one that is sold by RF Parts? Or do you have any comments about; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00218.html (10,278 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: W6TG@aol.com (W6TG@aol.com); Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:25:37 -0400 (EDT); << That's right Phil, it is a good idea. Chrome over copper would give even more slope with frequency. --snip-- The best systems minimize loss at HF by INCREASING the slope of resistance change with; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00220.html (8,364 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Mon, 26 May 97 15:28:46 -0700; --Hardly amazing to me, Terry. Mr. Rauch must have been aware of this since when he cancelled his 28 November post at the beginning of last December. This was very likely the denouement of the grate; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00223.html (9,630 bytes)
12. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net); Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:13:05 +0000; Yes Terry, you (and others) are missing a whole bunch. Nearly all the explanation!! Plating over a GOOD conductor INCREASES the slope. Using a uniform conductivity to the core POOR conductor DECREAS; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00227.html (9,298 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Re: skin depth suppression (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Tue, 27 May 97 17:20:26 -0700; Said Mr. Rauch: ...snip... Yes. It made me dizzy. We are talking about chromium-plating over brass. However, the "lossy plating" (chromium) is a substantively Better Conductor than brass. HELLO. Soli; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00234.html (8,579 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]