Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+\*\*\*\s+SPAM\s+\*\*\*\s+Re\[2\]\:\s+QEX\s+Innovative\s+Tube\s+Linear\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+\*\*\*\s+SPAM\s+\*\*\*\s+Re\[2\]\:\s+QEX\s+Innovative\s+Tube\s+Linear\?\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re[2]: QEX Innovative Tube Linear? (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:00:42 +0200 (CEST); I think the real problem at the end of the day was that the tube manufacturer wasn't going to provide any 'design maximum ratings' for sweep tubes except in horizontal sweep service. Realistic design; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00283.html (8,751 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] *** SPAM *** Re[2]: QEX Innovative Tube Linear? (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:28:35 -0400; Peter, Correct! I always figured that running them just under the design-maximum was pushing it, and as you've seen, I ran them only 90 Vdc under the maximum at 900 Vdc. The one using three for 100 w; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00285.html (11,153 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]