- 1. [AMPS] Suppressor impedance (score: 1)
- Author: w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net)
- Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:47:26 +0000
- Actually there seems to some "confusion" about the change caused by nichrome. I don't intend to argue this, so this will be my single group post on this subject. People should use common sense and th
- /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00169.html (9,308 bytes)
- 2. [AMPS] Suppressor impedance (score: 1)
- Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com)
- Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:58:24 EDT
- On Tue, 20 May 1997 10:47:26 +0000 w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net writes: Seeing is believing Tom. People should use common sense and I believe that there is simply a confusion of terminology he
- /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00170.html (13,134 bytes)
- 3. [AMPS] Suppressor impedance (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Tue, 20 May 97 13:44:23 -0700
- As I recall, this appears to be pretty much what Wes believed before he made the VHF suppressor measurements. Wes presumed--perhaps because the "recognized expert" said so--that any result could be
- /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00172.html (11,668 bytes)
- 4. [AMPS] Suppressor impedance (score: 1)
- Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK)
- Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:03:07 +0100
- I am not in anybody's "camp". I listen to other people's evidence - including Rich's - but I do my own independent thinking. Because it was a trivial exercise, not worth doing. Wes Stewart's measurem
- /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00175.html (8,076 bytes)
- 5. [AMPS] Suppressor impedance (score: 1)
- Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures)
- Date: Tue, 20 May 97 22:46:29 -0700
- ...snip... 101 ohms of Rp is almost the same as 166 ohms of Rp, Ian? (@100MHz) Rich-- R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contes
- /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00179.html (7,696 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu