Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+2\s+x\s+8877\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "P. Coppin" <copa054@cira.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:29:00 +0100
First of all, sorry for my poor english. I would like to know the reason why the amps manifacturers build linear amps using three 3cx800a7, 2 3cx1200a7, one 3cx3000a7 and ruskies but no one build a l
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00283.html (6,458 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:37:11 -0800
** Paul -- 2, 8877s cost about the same as a Svetlana 8170. 8877s are more delicate, and they require at least a 180-second warmup. 8170s are good to go in under 1-second. The input circuit for an C
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00288.html (7,676 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Clements" <philk5pc@tyler.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:41:29 -0600
build linear amps ruskies but no one the Alpha sx. Probably because a pair of 8877's is not near as cost effective (dollars per watt) as several other choices. Now that 8877's can be rebuilt for c.
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00291.html (7,962 bytes)

4. RE: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "Mike McCarthy, W1NR" <w1nr@eecorp.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:26:14 -0500
The Alpha SX had issues on 10M because of the capacitance of the two tubes. Also, 2x8877 is more expensive than 3x3cx800. With the 3cx800, the plate voltage is lower, required capacitance is lower, v
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00297.html (8,096 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Ed Briggs <edbriggs@optonline.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:22:07 -0500
Regarding glass windows, I've seen them in pictures, and always wanted an amp with one, but was always concerned about RF leakage and the possibility of long term exposure to VHF harmonics, particula
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00304.html (10,005 bytes)

6. RE: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "PAUL HEWITT" <wd7s@att.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:26:04 -0800
Hi Mike The dual 8877 arrangement should cost more as it allows more dissipation. Watt for watt the 800's will cost more, more sockets more room. The lower plate voltage means lower RL which means MO
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00307.html (10,828 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "Terry" <tgw6ru@bak.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:14:07 -0800
RIGHT ON DUDE !!!! Terry W6RU _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00308.html (7,610 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm@telia.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:34:12 +0100
Amen! They sure glow nice in the dark. 73 Jim SM2EKM -- Mike McCarthy, W1NR wrote: Still, nothing impresses me more, at least visually, than a pair of 4-1000's built into a cabinet with windows... Mi
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00312.html (7,776 bytes)

9. RE: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:56:51 -0800
** 2, 8877s at 4kV DC would have a RL of c. 1000-ohms. 3, 3cx800A7s at 2500V DC would have a RL of c. 780-ohms. For a Q of 10, Xc1would need to be 100-ohms and 78-ohms respectively -- i.e., the 3-ho
/archives//html/Amps/2004-02/msg00315.html (9,555 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "Steve Thompson" <g8gsq@ic24.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:16:07 -0000
My guts tell me it's unlikely to be a problem. A modest viewing window is going to be a tiny fraction of a wavelength and thus a very inefficient radiator, and the energy in harmonics where it will r
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00001.html (7,497 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@eon.net.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:03:46 +0800
RIGHT ON DUDE !!!! Terry W6RU Yeah, I think we have consensus. For some people, a dose of Viagra does the trick. 4-1000's do it for me. 73, Alek, VK6APK ______________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00002.html (7,853 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@eon.net.au>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:07:13 +0800
At 10:22 AM 29/02/2004 -0500, Ed Briggs wrote: Regarding glass windows, I've seen them in pictures, and always wanted an amp with one, but was always concerned about RF leakage and the possibility of
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00003.html (9,695 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Joe Isabella <n3ji@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Aluminum window screen pinched between the glass frame & front panel will work nicely. In fact, I just helped a guy out with a homebrew 3-500 amp where most of the cover was made out of screen. Obvio
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00005.html (12,096 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: "S. J. Blackwell" <w5lu@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 15:55:09 +0000
Steve, I had such an amp in the 1950's complete with window. It had a square cut out with glass. Beneath the glass was a layer of copper screen material for TVI suppression. The amount of VHF radiati
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00006.html (8,133 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:56:32 -0800
** No screen is needed since a 15cm by 10cm or so viewing window would be a waveguide below cutoff for anything a 4-1000A could produce. cheers, Alek _______________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00009.html (11,558 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 08:56:33 -0800
** The ideal viewing window for a 4-1000A would be one that magnifies about 40%.. cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.con
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00010.html (8,362 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: TexasRF@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:20:09 EST
Whoa, wait a minute! That 150cm by 100 cm opening might be a waveguide beyond cutoff but the attenuation for this size opening is pretty low according to the Bill Orr Radio Handbook. The chart for th
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00021.html (8,004 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:24:42 -0800
** My guess is that, at 28MHz, the radiation from the antenna is at least 30db stronger than that from the window. . _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00022.html (8,472 bytes)

19. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Radio WC6W <wc6w@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:10:59 -0800
< snip> produce. Hi Rich, The size given above, in waveguide, would have a cutoff in the vicinity of a Ghz but, since it has essentially zero length, it will have zero attenuation. It would take arou
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00025.html (8,236 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] 2 x 8877 (score: 1)
Author: Ed Briggs <edbriggs@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:51:49 -0500
But what about at 100 mHz and 200 mHz? I worry that a) there is no filtering of harmonic energy through the windows (no pi network), and that the inverse square law is significant when the antenna is
/archives//html/Amps/2004-03/msg00031.html (10,210 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu