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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+parasitic\s+suppressors\s*$/: 96 ]

Total 96 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:48:06 +0100; Something I don't understand - maybe Carl or Rich or Jon can explain. If I take an inductor (start with a 'perfect' inductor) and put a resistor in series with it, at LF it looks like the inductor is; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00098.html (8,988 bytes)
2. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:27:57 -0700; ? The inductance and the resistance are always there, whether it's LF or UHF. ? If one makes an inductor out of resistance wire, it looks like an inductance in series with a resistance, however, the; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00101.html (10,973 bytes)
3. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:13:23 +0100; Why? Skin resistance is proportional to square root of frequency, reactance is proportional to frequency. 73 Peter G3RZP -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contest; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00102.html (8,349 bytes)
4. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:30:49 +0100; Peter, what have you done? You've awoken the undead! Prepare for at least six weeks of mayhem and misquotation... I used to think that the Q of a parasitic suppressor had some meaning. having looked; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00106.html (12,008 bytes)
5. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:54:57 +0100; snip And the suppressor does stuff all at the vhf frequencies where the tuneC/coil combination looks high impedance. snip Steve -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00107.html (8,874 bytes)
6. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 99 13:23:53 -0500; Yup. Ditto. This is so true. You might not even need a typical RL parasitic suppressor in the anode. It all depends on the design of your circuit. If someone doubts me then how I was able to stabili; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00108.html (10,227 bytes)
7. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: w4eto@rmii.com (Richard W. Ehrhorn); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:43:39 -0600; Thanks, Ian... Extremely well put! All should read and try to comprehend. Both Peter's posting and yours should remind us all of the fundamental fact that equivalence of any pair of simple series and; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00110.html (13,339 bytes)
8. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:59:44 -0400; This goes back to Richs so called " grate (sp) debate" with Tom, Wes and others. Rich seems to enjoy being the odd man out. Once I see any major amp manufacturer, ham or commercial/industrial use voo; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00113.html (11,103 bytes)
9. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: km1h@juno.com (km1h@juno.com); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:58:43 -0400; Well put Ian. I wish I had your eloquence. Now, lets see how long battle four will be waged. 73 Carl KM1H ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Int; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00114.html (13,979 bytes)
10. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:45:41 -0700; (OK, ? Has standard AC Circuit Analysis been obviated? Has Dick looked at the numbers in Wes' measurements? . ? agreed. It also helps to have a current transient to ring #1 and get the ball rolling.; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00121.html (15,992 bytes)
11. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 23:12:39 -0500; If this is the case, then why is my amp stable WITHOUT any suppressor resistor at all? Or would you tell me that my amp ISN'T stable? You come and try to make it oscillate. You've ignored or not ack; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00123.html (9,637 bytes)
12. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:52:55 +0100; The first point that we need to realsie is that you only get the parasitics if the Barkhausen criteria are satisfied at any particular frequency. This, as Ian says, derives from the factors of gain a; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00126.html (9,620 bytes)
13. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 04:52:58 -0700; ? It isn't. ? The frequency of oscillation is pretty much fixed. In a typical parasite suppressor, roughly equal vhf currents flow through R-sup and L-sup. Parallel R-L circuits are said to have an; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00129.html (10,106 bytes)
14. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:16:15 +0100; On the contrary... but it has been used on the whole circuit, not just stopping at the suppressor. The original was from me - Dick was the messenger. If that one parameter was truly was all that matt; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00131.html (12,247 bytes)
15. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:35:20 +0100; circuits That's a convention for making the maths easy. You can deal with either as the other using the principles of duality; impedance may well be easier for some people (like me) to visualise, ra; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00132.html (11,319 bytes)
16. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:05:25 -0700; ? From the same place that RF comes from in a spark transmitter -- from a tuned circuit through which DC current pulses are passing. In an apparently stable HF transmitter, whenever current pulses a; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00133.html (11,985 bytes)
17. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:05:27 -0700; ? the L-R suppressor can be measured on a Z analyzer. The whole circuit can not. ? Ca-g or Ca-k does no more that tell one how much output-to-input feedback capacitance exists inside the tube.. ? ag; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00134.html (13,230 bytes)
18. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: w4eto@rmii.com (Richard W. Ehrhorn); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:14:15 -0600; *Sigh!"* Ian was right after all, Peter - you awakened the monster and now he's on the rampage again. Rich, I think you have your Dick's mixed. The first short posting below was mine - a basic observ; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00141.html (18,281 bytes)
19. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:58:20 -0700; ? amen. In other words, the Rp of the interconnecting leads plus the Rp of the parasitic suppressor are determiners of vhf voltage amplification. . ? Is not Q is derived from other two?. ? agreed. I; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00143.html (10,774 bytes)
20. [AMPS] parasitic suppressors (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:11:25 +0100; Not this side of the pond, they don't - unless the design is crap and they are oscillating. Nor in the ARRL lab reports published in QST. And it's still a conductance 10mS or a resistance of 100ohms.; /archives//html/Amps/1999-04/msg00150.html (9,807 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]