Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Vacuum\s+Cap\s+Rating\s+and\s+Plate\s+Voltage\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Vacuum\s+Cap\s+Rating\s+and\s+Plate\s+Voltage\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 21:08:23 -0500; Hi again, Was just looking at my components some more on my amp. The tune C is a Jennings UCS vacuum cap rated at 10KV. From my readings on tube amps that I have been doing recently, I remember readi; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00075.html (8,393 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 00:52:58 -0800; Not if one uses a DC blocking capacitor. When such an amplifier is tuned correctly the peak anode swing is slightly less than the anode supply potential. // The RF peak volt rating of a vacuum tunin; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00076.html (8,915 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 09:18:11 -0500; Hmm...OK was this an error in the ARRL handbook? I'll check again but I thought it said that if you use a blocking cap, the RF voltage could be twice the DC across the tune C and if you used no bloc; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00080.html (8,420 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 14:35:10 -0500; Well, I must be getting old because I am losing my memory. After asking this question initially and getting back responses to it, I went back and re-read the section in the ARRL handbook. The handbo; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00094.html (8,198 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner, W7TI); Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:16:42 GMT; _______________________________________________________________ That figure of equal voltage is correct when the output tank is fully loaded. With very light loading and lots of drive, the peak RF vo; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00111.html (8,038 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Mon, 20 Jul 98 20:57:02 -0800; In a worst-case mistune test on an SB-220, the peak V across the tune cap reportedly measured 3600V The anode supply potential was c. 2800V. Rich... R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00112.html (8,347 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: w4eto@rmii.com (Richard W. Ehrhorn); Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:06:36 -0600; As anyone who's ever [FOOLISHLY -- DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!] used a pencil to draw a fiery inch-long arc from the cap of anything bigger than an 813 can attest! Dick __________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/1998-07/msg00121.html (8,805 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Vacuum Cap Rating and Plate Voltage (score: 1): Author: buddyl@wa.net (Buddy Lumpkin); Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:42:57 -0700; Jon, I do not think that you were far off track. Everyone learns in basic electronics AC theory that it is expected that you will have voltages that are higher than the AC voltage applied in any reso; /archives//html/Amps/1997-05/msg00303.html (8,881 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]