Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Suppressors\,\s+measurements\,\s+and\s+acrimonious\s+blather\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

21. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:41:19 -0400
The goal is to prevent oscillation. That's done generally done by inserting a series resistance that is reasonably large compared to the anode path impedance. The shorter the anode lead, and less re
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00093.html (11,658 bytes)

22. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:14:56 -0700
? No one changed anything. The bottom-line is that the copper-wire parasitic suppressor had 40%+ more Q at 100MHz than the resistance-wire parasitic suppressor. The choice is simple. Those who want
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00096.html (14,524 bytes)

23. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:14:58 -0700
Is higher VHF Q better? Does more VHF gain provide better VHF stability? ? why does Wes use a logarithmic scale? This is quite true. However, for optimal stagger-tuning effect, increasing L-supp is
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00097.html (10,803 bytes)

24. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: philk5pc@tyler.net (Phil Clements)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 19:30:27 -0500
Henry reduced the dissipative burden in R-supp 100% in the 8-K Ultra by adding chrome plating to L-supp until the right R/L ratio was reached for the 3CX3000A7 layout. Several scoffed and threw rock
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00099.html (10,624 bytes)

25. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:46:45 -0700
Chromium is a good conductor. later, Phil - Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures. end -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative reque
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00104.html (10,141 bytes)

26. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:15:19 +0100
Having inherited my fathers junk box, as well as having built up mine over the last 40 years, I too have a number of brand new, never used carbon composition resistors. Measurements indicate exactly
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00144.html (10,411 bytes)

27. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:56:23 -0400
Do you suppose you fellows missed the fact most boxes of resistors are full of parasitics? Have you ever checked old resistors kept in a nichrome storage box? This could be a whole new market. 73, T
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00145.html (10,093 bytes)

28. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:29:21 +0100
-- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00146.html (9,280 bytes)

29. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:36:24 +0100
I'd go along with that - at least, for properly rated amplifiers. The last big production amp I did (as opposed to amateur) was continuous rated for SSB/FSK/AM etc at 400 watts output. I used some so
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00147.html (9,523 bytes)

30. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:17:34 -0400
The wattage required depends only on the amount of current diverted to the resistor(s) on ten meters, and their resistance. That is not directly related to the power involved. 73, Tom W8JI w8ji@cont
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00148.html (9,551 bytes)

31. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: da_kang@hotmail.com (Jeff Wolf)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:03:31 GMT
I believe some people have use ferrite beads on sweep tubes and 6146s and the like, but I've never found them terribly good. Golden Falcon, Loudmouth, and some Palomar had them as well. They worked s
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00149.html (8,849 bytes)

32. [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: philk5pc@tyler.net (Phil Clements)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:05:43 -0500
I maintain that a 100% fudge-factor for R-supp is good engineering practice. (((73))) Phil, K5PC -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative req
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00150.html (9,541 bytes)

33. SV: [AMPS] Suppressors, measurements, and acrimonious blather (score: 1)
Author: sm5ki@algonet.se (sm5ki)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:33:31 +0200
Those white ERIE (?) ( composite?) resistors used in PYE equipment around 1957 were really drifting. On one occasion in 1957 I repaired a receiver in a 70 MHz AM station ( one of the two first Taxi r
/archives//html/Amps/2000-08/msg00209.html (12,706 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu