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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Matching\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] matching (score: 1): Author: Peter.Chadwick@gpsemi.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:17:03 -0000; Rich, you say that When we were discussing this matter here a few weeks ago, Tom indicated (although I may have misunderstood him) that the the output impedance is a 'non dissipative resistance'. Und; /archives//html/Amps/1997-12/msg00002.html (7,715 bytes)
2. [AMPS] matching (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Mon, 1 Dec 97 02:53:35 -0800; Non-dissipative resistance makes no sense to me, Peter. What next, non-reactive inductance? During the vhf parasitics debate, Mr. Rauch indicated that standard AC Circuit Analysis could not be used; /archives//html/Amps/1997-12/msg00003.html (7,509 bytes)
3. [AMPS] matching (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:54:13 +0000; "Resistive, but not dissipative" would be closer to the mark. The article uses the term "impedance" in the sense of being the ratio of voltage/current observed at a particular location. To the extent; /archives//html/Amps/1997-12/msg00011.html (8,012 bytes)
4. [Amps] Matching (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:31:56 +0000; All this thinking is getting me confused. I'm back to my original conclusion. As an example, take an impedance of 100 + j50 ohms, which you want to match to 50R resistive. I can see two L match solut; /archives//html/Amps/2005-12/msg00207.html (6,328 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Matching (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:28:29 +0100 (CET); No - 'cos you're not wrong! 73 Peter G3RZP _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2005-12/msg00220.html (6,958 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Matching (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:32:05 +0000; After more peering at Smith charts (considering matching some impedance to a resistance), I think there's some impedances where you can't get lower Q than an L match, and others where you can. There'; /archives//html/Amps/2005-12/msg00240.html (7,013 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Matching (score: 1): Author: "wc6w@juno.com" <wc6w@juno.com>; Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:59:36 GMT; QST network fans Here is a link to a manuscript (in process) by Dave, G3NYH, that provides the most info I've ever seen in one place regarding matching networks & their associated math. http://www.g3; /archives//html/Amps/2005-12/msg00273.html (7,225 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Matching (score: 1): Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>; Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:56:47 +0000; And also whether the series output C of the T-network is helping or not. In the particular case of 100+j50, the series C tunes out the reactance and leaves 100+j0 to be matched. None of the L-network; /archives//html/Amps/2005-12/msg00274.html (9,319 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]