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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Cal\s+Lab\s*$/: 25 ]

Total 25 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:36:03 -0400; All, I wanted to let everyone know I recently finished buying almost everything to set up a calibration lab for hams and others. The price of calibration is too high for anyone to stand, so I decided; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00318.html (7,764 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kirkby@onetel.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:58:29 +0100; Hi, I tried mailing you off-list, but the message bounced with : Remote host said: 550 Email from your Email Service Provider is currently blocked by Verizon Online's anti-spam system. So it seems yo; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00329.html (10,234 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:25:59 -0400; See below; Hmm, never had that problem before. That would be with the ISP as you say, not on my end as the spam filter in my e-mail app just moves spam to the wastebasket folder to be deleted. You wo; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00330.html (13,531 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:29:19 -0400; Dave, No, I wont be certifying anything. It's just a service to get a meter close to where it should be without having to pay a big cal lab price. In other words, I wont be doing calibrations on any; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00331.html (8,036 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:06:45 -0400; Bob, You know I never did think of that, but your exactly right! A person could make a circuit up to do that using a color burst crystal and connecting to the cable, but that would be a good size pro; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00333.html (8,884 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:20:05 -0400; John, Your right. When I wrote this, I was using an app called ESBcalc on my computer and I did it wrong. I was used to using my hand calculator, and this app is different in the way you do it. Sorry; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00334.html (9,885 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 16:44:31 -0400; All, On those 0.01% resistors, I've been quoted anywhere from $15.11 to $22.00 each. That's why I said I'd like to find some at $7.00. Below are the $15.11 resistors webpage link at Newark. http://ww; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00335.html (10,907 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:16:52 +0100; To check/set oscillators here, I use the OCXO as external input to lock a synth sig gen, then set the output frequency to put it on top of a BBC station and time the beat note, I've used both MW and; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00336.html (7,734 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:17:10 -0400; If you use the tv be sure to check with the station to see if they actually use a rubidium or other good standard. I don't know about these days but in the past not all stations used good standards.; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00337.html (11,020 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Pete Stark" <pstark@charter.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:39:41 -0400; Stations do not genlock to network anymore so that nationwide standard is not valid. Most use synchronizers to lock network to a local station. 3.58 fcc limit is +/- 5hz so you are at the mercy of th; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00338.html (11,442 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Administrator" <amps@myrealbox.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:44:27 -0400; Gentlemen, This is *NOT* the "test and measurement forum." Please confine the topics here to amplifier related issues. Calibration standards, old test equipment and hand tools do not belong here ...; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00339.html (8,647 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:10:31 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** I am really getting tired of this administrator's censorship. OF COURSE calibration standards belong here, as do test equipment and hand tools! How can you bui; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00340.html (8,907 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "W. E. Bailey" <ebailey@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:19:25 -0400 (EDT); I have learned a lot from posts to this Reflector, and I hope to continue to do so. I cannot fathom why posts about tests and measurements do not belong here. But if they don't, then neither do I. Re; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00341.html (10,161 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "k7fm" <k7fm@teleport.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:48:34 -0700; When I see home built amplifiers, one of my pet peeves is seeing a nice amp with 4 or 5 different types of meters. I have a supply of old 50 ua radiation meters and I make new scales and shunts to us; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00343.html (9,067 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:59:17 -0600; That's the fun thing about Photoshop! I can take a meter face, scan it into Photoshop, and make a face of any color and any scale. Was that a joke? _______________________________________________ Am; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00346.html (8,844 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Jim Tonne" <tonne@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:25:25 -0400; A more professional way to make meter faces is to use software intended to do that, an example of which is here: http://tonnesoftware.com/meter.html - Jim WB6BLD _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00347.html (8,361 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:41:34 -0600; More professional, indeed? Well, being a radio amateur, I'd guess I don't need to attempt to be professional. However, I am a professional Photoshop user, so anything that program can do I can do be; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00348.html (8,187 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:48:31 -0400; All, When I made the post, I intended and asked for everyone to contact me off the list as I figured some wouldn't like it. Dave couldn't reach me through his ISP to mine, and this mailer was the onl; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00350.html (10,539 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: R@contesting.com;Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:18:34 -0700; Designing accurate metering circuitry is an essential part of any amplifier construction project. Doing so also provides us with a good review of Ohm's Law and D.C. circuit analysis. Rich Measures, 8; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00354.html (10,744 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] Cal Lab (score: 1): Author: R@contesting.com;Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:30:05 -0700; Is there another amplifier discussion group like this one that does not have a censor? When hand tools become obsolete, so am I. Yes, I still own a 1940-model Stanley® hand crank drill with a hol; /archives//html/Amps/2006-04/msg00355.html (10,021 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]