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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Checking\s+for\s+IMD\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:13:21 -0400; When you use two RF sources the closest harmonic is twice the operating frequency, so it normally isn't an issue. 73 Tom _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contes; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00421.html (9,518 bytes)
22. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:18:20 -0400; Since the IMD can add or subtract with variations in power level, cable lengths, and other things I would think a person would want to know how much contribution the amplifier makes when determining; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00422.html (9,902 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Jim Tonne" <tonne@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:41:15 -0400; Tom: What I meant was how clean (free of harmonic content) does each of a pair of audio tones (sinusoids) need to be if that pair is modulating an SSB transmitter in lieu of a speech signal? If I hav; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00423.html (9,427 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:35:50 -0400; It depends on the transmitter. You'd have harmonics at 4000 and 5000Hz although down 40dB or more, so I wouldn't think it too bad unless a harmonics would blow through the filter and wind up on the; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00425.html (10,007 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:48:23 -0400; All, One can buy a spectrum analyzer with tracking generator that goes to about 1.2 GHz for around $800 to $900 new. These are the same as the Hameg, and a few companies are getting them private labe; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00426.html (11,724 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:03:31 -0500; The problem with most of the cheaper spectrum analyzers is that they don't have enough resolution. For IM measurements you need a 200 or 300 HZ bandwidth filter and enough stability to sweep only a f; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00429.html (13,706 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "W7RY" <w7ry@centurytel.net>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:23:57 -0700; The SM-220 and the ol' Heathkit SB614 do the same thing as these "RF Splatter View" devices. The Heath and Kenwood even have a built in dual tone generator. 73 Jim W7RY The Collins 30L1 has such a me; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00432.html (11,094 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:27:32 -0400; If you get an old analyzer be very careful. Even the better of the old analyzers, like the HP141, requires a narrow frequency range RF section to be useful. There are a lot of analyzers out there th; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00434.html (9,389 bytes)
29. [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: <enola-1964@hotmail.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:12:12 +0800; There is another way, homebrew a inexpensive measure receiver ( please view W7ZOI Wes Hayward's EMRF), it shoud be do this job. I have a question too, we test IMD using a two tone generator and a SSB; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00435.html (8,631 bytes)
30. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:46:15 +0200 (CEST); 1.2 ghz rf head in it. < The oscillator that downconverts the first IF to 500MHz is about 1500MHz, and is free running. It's surprising that it manages the stability it does. One of these days, I'm g; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00437.html (8,241 bytes)
31. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Michael Tope" <W4EF@dellroy.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:27:04 -0700; Even the 110 MHz head isn't terribly stable, Peter. I agree that a modern PLL/DDS based synthesizer for this analyzer would be a really useful project. Mike W4EF.................................... _; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00440.html (8,581 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:02:34 +0200 (CEST); PLL/DDS based synthesizer for this analyzer would be a really useful< Provided you keep the spurs down! Always a problem with DDS. What I do like about the 141 series is that it requires intelligence; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00448.html (9,798 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Tony King - W4ZT <amps080906@w4zt.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:43:15 -0400; Just swapping sidebands will not take you out where you need to be to look for the IM products. You need to be looking out about 4.5 KHz. Rich, Tom and others discussed the measurement of IMD in a pr; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00449.html (12,233 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:09:11 -0400; I'm pretty sure that does not give you the average IM level Tony. I'll have to think about that a little bit more, but off the top it seems wrong because the meter on our receivers detects peaks, no; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00451.html (11,202 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Tony King - W4ZT <amps080906@w4zt.com>; Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:20:55 -0400; That makes sense and it really isn't an issue of peak versus average to me but rather a means to compare the levels Ok... in my case I use the old TS-940 and I would have to put a generator on it to; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00453.html (12,357 bytes)
36. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:01:36 -0700; Amen, Mr. Rauch. Example: With a G2DAF amplifier, the IMD level with human speech is typically 11X worse than it is with a 2-tone test. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org __________________; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00454.html (10,462 bytes)
37. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:54:59 +0200 (CEST); not an averaging measurement device. I would add a correction that the level is not the average, but rather the peak power contained in the filter bandwidth.< Additionally, all too often, the 'S' in; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00455.html (8,966 bytes)
38. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:46:52 +0100; Pulling together a few sub-threads... The 11/110MHz (8553B) plugin for the 141T mainframe is stable enough for IMD testing, if you leave it for long enough to warm up - just don't expect to do any se; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00456.html (9,649 bytes)
39. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 05:51:42 -0400; The important point is to know the flaws and keep the flaws of most receivers from being what we measure. You'd have to look at the adjacent channel IM characteristics of the receiver and know its S; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00457.html (10,505 bytes)
40. Re: [Amps] Checking for IMD (score: 1): Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 03:36:36 -0700; Good idea, Tom Since the same S-meter is used for both measurements, and stepattenuators are quite impartial, the method works. D-arsonval meters don't semi-average? good point S-meters typically hav; /archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00458.html (11,369 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]