Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+SB\-220\s+IMPROVEMENTS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+SB\-220\s+IMPROVEMENTS\s*$/: 35 ]

Total 35 documents matching your query.

21. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: JEH@on.mobile.telia.se (Jan-Erik Holm); Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:18:44 GMT+1; I take a dB any day on HF and 0.5 dB or less on EME. It´s a jungle out there and all smoke that one can muster sure will pay off. 73 de Jim SM2EKM 1.8MHz to 432MHz -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.con; /archives//html/Amps/1997-04/msg00058.html (8,555 bytes)
22. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 12:10:31 -0800; ...snip... Is being stronger really all that important? During the early 1980's, I participated in daytime open-door discussions on 7258KHz about virtually anything that was interesting to more than; /archives//html/Amps/1997-04/msg00065.html (12,422 bytes)
23. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: w5robert@blkbox.COM (Robert); Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:29:24 -0600 (CST); (snip) 10db = 10db even on 10meters. A KW will over-run 100watts everytime (other things being equal)- that's why we're on the amp reflector. -- 73 Robert W5AJ w5robert@blkbox.com -- FAQ on WWW: htt; /archives//html/Amps/1997-03/msg00004.html (7,203 bytes)
24. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T. A. Russell); Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 12:01:17 EST; The SB-220 is a near optimum design for it's intended power and size. Trying to obtain higher power seems to run one right into the limits of other components such as the power supply filter capacito; /archives//html/Amps/1997-03/msg00333.html (7,611 bytes)
25. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Sun, 30 Mar 97 10:34:40 -0800; The filament choke works well on 160m by adding C to C2 in the tuned input to cancel the choke's X. Sure, but would the guy on the other end notice a db? When 10m is open, it's hard to tell 100w fro; /archives//html/Amps/1997-03/msg00334.html (9,152 bytes)
26. [AMPS] SB-220 IMPROVEMENTS (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:06:51 EST; Nag..Nag...Tom! The SB-229 prototype is already running. 160-10M; all 9 bands at 1200W out. The problem is getting the new bandswitch and some other components that are very expensive. I'm shopping a; /archives//html/Amps/1997-03/msg00339.html (7,670 bytes)
27. [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: "Trevor Pitman" <jantree@satlink.com.au>; Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:03:07 +1100; Hello Group, I am currently modifying an SB-220 for use on 6 meters by changing the 10 meter section as per the QST article (SB-220 0N 6 METERS) and leaving the rest of the amp band positions unchang; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00128.html (7,015 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: "Christopher J Galbraith" <cgalbrai@umich.edu>; Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:38:07 -0800; Hi Trevor, I just finished working on an SB-220 (after studying the TowerTalk archive and asking many questions on the list, too) and can offer the following answers to your questions: 1. Ground the; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00129.html (9,835 bytes)
29. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:31:41 EST; I am currently modifying an SB-220 for use on 6 meters by changing the 10 meter section as per the QST article (SB-220 0N 6 METERS) and leaving the rest of the amp band positions unchanged on HF. The; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00156.html (7,544 bytes)
30. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: "Robert B. Bonner" <rbonner@qro.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:30:50 -0600; Yeah well if it is printed in QST it is approved by God himself isn't it? You cant believe everything you read. I agree with Lou, the 220 is best converted to completely be on 6 meters by itself. The; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00159.html (9,087 bytes)
31. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:04:18 EST; Yeah well if it is printed in QST it is approved by God himself isn't it? You cant believe everything you read. I agree with Lou, the 220 is best converted to completely be on 6 meters by itself. The; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00160.html (7,942 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:46:38 -0500; I wouldn't use a pair of 3-500Z's on six meters even if it was dedicated. I use 3CX800A7's or something. My AL800 works perfect on six meters, 1000 watts out on CW easy, and it works on 160-15 just f; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00164.html (8,097 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: "Robert B. Bonner" <rbonner@qro.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:52 -0600; Yes my single 8877 (Hank 3006) works really nice on 6 meters. :-) All I've given up is floor space. BOB DD I wouldn't use a pair of 3-500Z's on six meters even if it was dedicated. I use 3CX800A7's o; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00165.html (8,558 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:02:07 EST; I wouldn't use a pair of 3-500Z's on six meters even if it was dedicated. An SB-220 using a pair of 3-500's make a SUPER 6 meter amplifier. I beg to differ. 73 Lou ___________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00166.html (7,815 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] SB-220 Improvements (score: 1): Author: Steve Katz <stevek@jmr.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:33 -0800; I've converted three SB-220s to "six meters only" and they work well, tune smoothly and are very stable. If anyone wants detailed instructions, with all parts list callouts and such, let me know, I c; /archives//html/Amps/2007-01/msg00167.html (9,114 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 35
Page: [1] [2]