Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+New\s+SB\-200\s+owner\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+New\s+SB\-200\s+owner\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "r2robby" <robby@route2.pe.ca>; Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:21:43 -0300; I am a new subscriber to this list and soon to be an ex-subscriber. I have recently bought a used SB-200 and plan on converting it to 6M monoband use. I do not plan to pay someone to do it even thoug; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00331.html (8,032 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:29:01 EDT; If I am not able to get at any information that will benefit my project on this list, could someone kindly direct me to the correct one. Thanks in advance, 73, -Robby VY2SS Robby, with all the nay-sa; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00341.html (7,144 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:55:57 -0400; All the info needed is available in a couple of ham level handbooks and a tube spec sheet. If someone has a license that didnt come out of a box it shouldnt be hard to get started. THEN, when or if y; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00344.html (7,582 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "Roger Halstead" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:13:32 -0400; Welcome and don't let the current signal to noise...er... high noise to signal ratio discourage you. Like any newsgroup/reflector I've seen, on occasion a topic will arise that raises a bit of confl; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00346.html (9,617 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:16:03 +0200 (CEST); for the desired Q at the operating frequency which in this case is 50 to 54 MHz.< Is there any advantage in using a pi-L, rather than a straight pi and suitable low pass or bandpass filtering to get; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00359.html (7,643 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:56:43 EDT; Were it me, I'd start with a search for articles on such conversions. They may or may not be on the net. I don't recall seeing any in the ham magazines, but I wasn't interested in doing a conversion; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00363.html (8,450 bytes)
7. [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:21:11 +0200 (CEST); SB-200 conversions is exactly that, add on 6 meters to HF. < Surely not! The older ARRL handbooks had a 4-250 amplifier design for 21, 28 and 50 MHz, and that's the nearest I've seen to multiband amp; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00364.html (8,855 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:21:47 EDT; If someone has a license that didnt come out of a box it shouldnt be hard to get started. Ah yes, "out of a cracker jack box" ala W2OY...he he ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com ________________; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00365.html (8,071 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:29:29 EDT; Personally, I'd have said that trying to add 6 metres to an HF amp was a good way of asking for trouble. If you designed it from scratch with suitable mechanics to give very low capacitance switching; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00366.html (8,427 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "Roger Halstead" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:29:18 -0400; I wonder about going the 4CX-250 route, or 4-250. Apparently my Eimac hand book is out in the shop so I can't look up the numbers for the 125, 250 and 400, but I do have a commercial 2-meter amp usi; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00369.html (11,798 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "Roger Halstead" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:43:08 -0400; This didn't make it through before, or at least several posts did afterwards so I stripped it down to try again. I wonder about going the 4CX-250 route, or 4-250. Apparently my Eimac hand book is out; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00370.html (10,060 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "Roger Halstead" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:33:59 -0400; Brings back memories of the "good old days" <LOL> Said in rythm..."CQ...CQ...CQ, No lids, no kids, no space cadets... " and I've forgotten the rest of the mantra. 73 Roger (K8RI) ___________________; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00371.html (8,570 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:29:24 +0200 (CEST); Lou, This must be the subtleties in meanings that occur from time to time between English English and American English. Your comment was that some articles had suggested this: I was hardly disagreein; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00372.html (8,423 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:42:07 -0400; Ive found absolutely no benefit to a Pi-L in a monoband 6M amp Peter. Ive also not tested or experienced a commercial amp that includes 6M, or even a xcvr in some cases, that cannot benefit from a go; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00375.html (9,970 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:05:45 -0400; Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00380.html (9,748 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:43:05 -0400; Why on earth would anyone want to replace 3-500Z's with 4-400's in a SB-220???? First of all they have worse IMD in a GG configuratiion. Secondly they will not be cooled properly by the existing fan; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00381.html (12,343 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:48:05 -0400; Peter, just what would you consider a good economical tube if building from scratch for 6M? Ive not seen any REAL verified IMD numbers published for any Russian tubes except maybe the 4CX800 and have; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00382.html (9,457 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:57:56 +0200 (CEST); It seems to me we can boil down this discussion to that given: 1. you have an SB200 available to convert for 6m 2. it is ONLY going to be on 6m 3. No way is it going to have any other band on it then; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00384.html (8,733 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:24:33 -0400; I agree with all except the last sentence in part. The 3-500Z is a great tube on 6M and well within its 120 MHz maximum ratings. One 3-500Z will roughly equal a pair of 572B's in output and have bett; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00388.html (9,991 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] New SB-200 owner (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:36:28 +0100; I think they can do better linearity than that - the amps I built have all done so at 250-300W/tube. The STC data sheet for 4CX250B gives IMD figures under the typical operating conditions. At 2kV,; /archives//html/Amps/2007-09/msg00389.html (9,351 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]