Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Parasitics\s+\&\s+Filament\s+Sag\s*$/: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Harold Mandel" <ka1xo@juno.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:00:27 -0400
Gentlemen, A previous post mentions a phenomenon wherein is written "parasitic oscillation" and what I deduce as filament sag. Is it possible that these two conditions are related? It is understood h
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00678.html (8,530 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:14:41 -0400
No. If you calculate the amount of magnetic force produced by current, you'll see that force for something the size of a filament helice is on the order of a few grams from a dozen amperes of curren
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00679.html (10,123 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@uplink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:41:22 -0400
Hal, You raise a good point which could be extrapolated like this: Parasitic oscillation MAY be the cause for SOME grid-to-filament shorts. There has been equal number of situations where the applica
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00685.html (10,459 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:31:19 -0400
In random tests when an unknown intermittent problem occurs, no change at all can result in what people perceive as a cure. This why double blind tests are done. The random coincidence effect is why
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00686.html (10,199 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:08:20 -0700
Hal -- Parasitic suppressor resistors are normally paralleled by 60 to 100nH of L. Thus, to develop enough V across a suppressor to damage the resistor, VHF is required. After observing a number of c
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00687.html (10,535 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Sawyer" <w3slk@uplink.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:48:33 -0400
I wouldn't know, I never owned one. However, the amp that we used the nichrome on was a HB 2 X 813 amp. Myself and my co-colaborator, got a 'ticket' from the FCC. It seems we were throwing VHF spurs
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00688.html (9,836 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:04:43 -0700
At 50MHz, on a Boonton Q-meter, the Q a Cu wire inductor is about 5.5X that of a similar Ni-Cr wire inductor. N7WS, Wes, was the man who single handedly ended the grate parasitics debate between Tom
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00690.html (12,276 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:41:43 -0400
Rich, Your statements concerning the tests by N7WS are completely inaccurate. Your use of his graph without also reproducing his extensive analysis of the results is completely dishonest and distorts
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00691.html (10,951 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:22:52 +0100
Rich gives only one part of the story. For the information of relative newcomers, "let the record show" the other part as well: N7WS categorically disagreed with Rich's interpretation of his measurem
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00692.html (10,100 bytes)

10. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:42:11 -0700
From the beginning of the Grate Parasitics Debate alt.amateurradio.homebrew, N7WS, Wes had been in the Rauchian camp. Wes was one of the few in theSince Wes correctly realized that the Q of a VHF sup
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00695.html (13,177 bytes)

11. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:57:10 -0700
I used Wes' numbers and I let the reader draw their own conclusions. I'm pretty sure that Wes' measurements are accurate because subsequent tests by another tester show a similar difference between a
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00696.html (12,186 bytes)

12. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:55:45 -0400
You are presenting data out of context and misrepresenting Wes's work. That is intellectually dishonest and no different than the journalist or prosecutor who asks, "well Mr. Measures, please tell us
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00697.html (12,062 bytes)

13. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:55:38 +0200
Perhaps the reason is that manufactures of amateur amplifiers are almost always hams and just duplicate amplifier layouts from the past. Commercial amplifier manufactures used suppressors wound of re
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00698.html (9,897 bytes)

14. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:55:55 -0500
It is sad that in most cases of "fixes" reported here on the reflector, when a parasitic suppressor is replaced, no one measures the value of the old resistor compared to what its original value was.
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00699.html (11,284 bytes)

15. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:07:14 -0400
All, I've read Rich's webpages front to back, and I have also read what Tom has to say. I try to weigh each equally when I read what each say. What I do gather though from Rich is that he does not de
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00700.html (15,732 bytes)

16. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:08:03 -0400
Peter, I totally agree! Best, Will ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** On 8/27/06 at 5:55 PM Peter Voelpel wrote: _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00701.html (10,783 bytes)

17. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:15:39 -0500
Joe, Maybe you could tell us where we could read the rest of the story? 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00702.html (12,533 bytes)

18. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: Tony King - W4ZT <amps080906@w4zt.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:22:10 -0400
I'm getting tired of this endless attacking and name calling. Obviously Rich's suppressors work. Some just can't seem to admit that part and want to argue the technical differences in what they COULD
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00703.html (10,999 bytes)

19. [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Harold Mandel" <ka1xo@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:47:45 -0400
Here is what I understand from the consensus of opinion: 1. VHF Parasitics may develop sufficient amperage such that filaments may physically distort. 2. Some sort of oscillation can happen as a resu
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00704.html (7,475 bytes)

20. Re: [Amps] Parasitics & Filament Sag (score: 1)
Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:57:30 -0400
To your point, I suspect that if we were to put the question to the designer of every commercial amplifier to explain the exact mathematical analysis used in determining their chosen R/L parasitic v
/archives//html/Amps/2006-08/msg00705.html (10,957 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
This search system is powered by Namazu