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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Design\s+VS\s+parasitic\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "kingwood" <k5jv@kingwoodcable.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:28:50 -0500; Greetings to all, A couple of comments to my last post have prompted another reply. The question must be asked, "What causes a parasitic oscillation, in the first place?" The very basic answer is "st; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00406.html (9,212 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:55:12 -0400; There will be virtually no difference in loaded Q of a suppressor using silver plated ribbon or thin nichrome wire or anything in between. The 33-47 Ohm resistor is the Q controller. Where nichrome h; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00409.html (11,474 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:24:35 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: You are missing the fundamental purpose of a parasitic suppressor. It does not "trap", "load" or "absorb" the parasitic. Instead, its job is to reduce the gain at the parasit; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00421.html (8,126 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:34:44 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Nonsense. The "stray" inductance introduced by the wire from the anode to the blocking cap, from the blocking cap to the tune cap and the internal lead length inside the tune; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00422.html (7,931 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:12:38 -0400; Nonsense yourself. Each tube has its own parasitic signature and doesnt need a supporting cast to determine it. John understands the process and explained it well. Going by your idea every amp would; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00423.html (9,550 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:49:18 -0400; Wouldn't it be correct to say (paraphrasing): Designing a circuit to prevent parasitic oscillations rather than designing one to deal with the results of one? 73 Roger (K8RI) ________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00429.html (8,738 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:09:11 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Yes. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00431.html (8,012 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:22:18 -0400; How do you propose to do that when the tube itself is the source? Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/l; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00436.html (9,236 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:26:14 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Not wanting to state the obvious, but having to anyway...... The tube is only an amplifying device. What it amplifies, and at what frequency, are determined partly by the tub; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00442.html (8,848 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:44:13 -0400; Then give us an example of a parasitic free 3-500Z amp....if you can. And also please explain why the natural parasitic frequency of a tube as determined by math and in a test jig doesnt change, exce; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00444.html (9,900 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:06:27 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Ok, although I am not a fan of 3-500Z's and have only used one once. I converted a Heath SB-1000 to six meters, removed the parasitic suppressor and replaced the input circui; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00446.html (10,433 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:28:39 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I had never heard of "the natural parasitic frequency" of a tube until you mentioned it in a previous post. I am assuming you mean the combination of anode-to-grounded-elemen; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00448.html (9,829 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: Jack Shirley <jcshirle@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:23:06 -0400; I installed the Measures nichrome kit in a friends Henry 3k/8877. This was after he did it and blew a tube. The solder connections he made with the supplied materials was horrible. I followed the ins; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00459.html (11,402 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:26:37 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: It does take some expertise to solder nichrome, even with the flux Rich supplies. I have done it successfully as have many others. It works. 73, Bill W6WRT __________________; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00461.html (8,986 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:13:51 -0400; Reduce the tube gain in the parasitic range to prevent the oscillation? At least that's what I've been reading on here. <:-)) 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ Amps mail; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00467.html (10,083 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@bigpond.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:08:31 +0800; On the contrary Jack. The wire is comparable in diameter to 20 Amp fuse wire so I don't believe 1A plate current will present any problems. 73, Alek VK6APK http://www.qrz.com/vk6apk http://www.qrz.co; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00471.html (12,167 bytes)
17. [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: Ron Youvan <ka4inm@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:44:11 +0000; That's why I love the idea of using large wire wound resistors as the coil, the nichrome is "factory welded." I shall try to obtain current carrying capacity ratings of proposed resistors for my pro; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00475.html (8,676 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:54:37 -0400; And then we come full circle to the raised grids and gain reduction in the SB-220. Ive realized after all these years that the parasitics or grid issue will never die so why bother getting riled up.; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00476.html (10,915 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Alex Eban" <alexeban@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:38:42 +0300; At Tadiran we tried once to add a diplexer with a 50 MHz crossover frequency and with a load connected to the high pass section. We got all kinds of interesting results, except the wanted one! Drop i; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00487.html (10,784 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] Design VS parasitic (score: 1): Author: "Alex Eban" <alexeban@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:56:39 +0300; There is one.... A thing which doesn't show up here is the transit time parameter: the time it takes from electrons to travel from the cathode grid area to the anode. It's a few nanoseconds for commo; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00488.html (11,912 bytes)

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