Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+No\s+parasitic\s+choke\s+question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+No\s+parasitic\s+choke\s+question\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:22:44 -0500; There seems to be three camps in this discussion.. Nychrome, no nychrome, and now neither. Eliminate the parasitic; eliminate the suppressor. \If eliminating the suppressor can : ( 1 ) produce less h; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00287.html (10,234 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:07:00 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Any oscillator, parasitic or not, requires some of the energy in the anode circuit be fed back to the input circuit in the proper phase and amplitude to sustain oscillation.; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00289.html (12,026 bytes)
3. [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:47:18 -0700; There seems to be three camps in this discussion.. Nychrome, no nychrome, and now neither. Eliminate the parasitic; eliminate the suppressor. \If eliminating the suppressor can : ( 1 ) produce less h; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00291.html (7,401 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:56:25 -0400; This third approach is not practical for several reasons. 1. The VHF resonance(s) may not be on one frequency. When you tune the output or input circuits it may change as well as when you change band; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00293.html (10,802 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:43:59 -0400; Its easy when you copy established designs and info. Amp building IS NOT that hard. Even CBers do it........ Carl KM1H _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contestin; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00295.html (11,055 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:04:24 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Regarding #1: A valid point and that's why I suggested de-Qing the series trap circuit. In fact, one could use two or more series traps if needed, stagger-tuned. They are sim; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00296.html (11,174 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:30:17 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: The trouble is, few homebrewers copy an established design exactly. They substitute parts, change the layout, alter values, etc, etc, and that's where problems can creep in.; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00297.html (10,596 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:31:02 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: LOL! Made my day. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00298.html (9,987 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:34:38 -0500; OK....... Designing on paper. Paralleled off the input circuit we place a 40 mhz high-pass filter into a properly terminated dummy load. Don WA4NPL _______________________________________________ Amp; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00299.html (10,387 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:14:30 -0400; Yah, but from what I've seen so far, they aren't exactly worried about purity of emissions.<:-)) If the original design called for two 3-500Zs then 5 should be even better and class C gives even more; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00303.html (12,225 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:11 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Excellent idea. certainly worth a try. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailma; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00317.html (10,343 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: Jim Barber <audioguy@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:40:34 -0700; Interesting... What about a series low-pass instead right at the cathode? It would have to handle the drive power, but wouldn't it reduce the number of potential feedback paths? 73 Jim, N7CXI _______; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00319.html (10,616 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:22:06 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I don't think it would reduce the impedance at the VHF parasitic frequency, if I understand you right. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mai; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00322.html (10,377 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: Jim Barber <audioguy@charter.net>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:17:06 -0700; I was thinking (perhaps in error) that if the parasitic network was right at the cathode connection it might be more effective in the case where there was imperfect shielding between the goesinna and; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00329.html (11,376 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:37:06 -0400; Jim, ask yourself why: If it was actually a workable solution why havent decades of amplifier and tube engineers championed such a thing. Its nice to dream of an unknown easy way out but it aint gonn; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00330.html (12,233 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: TexasRF@aol.com; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:37:14 EDT; There was a write up in QST back in the early 70's about parasitic suppression in the cathode circuit. Maybe you can track it down and read all about it. I remember it because I was building up an am; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00333.html (8,893 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] No parasitic choke question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:29:25 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: You can't just move the same parasitic suppressor from the anode to the cathode. It is designed for a relatively high impedance circuit whereas your cathode is relatively low; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00337.html (10,693 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 17
Page: [1]