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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Plate\s+Load\s+Calc\.\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Steve Flood" <flood@ixi.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:23:08 -0700; For calculating Resonant Plate Load, Orr's Handbook suggests 1.8 for the K-factor for Class B and C. Tonne's PI-EL software uses a K-factor of 1.8 for Class B and 2.0 for Class C. This gives quite a; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00014.html (6,281 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:32:33 -0500; K is a rough approximation. As a matter of fact the Q you calculate using Rp/Xcp in a pi-net is another approximation. The actual network Q is higher. Fortunately the tank performance and system eff; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00015.html (7,816 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>; Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:03:20 -0600; I had Reid Brandon of Eimac do the numbers and circuit suggestions several years ago when I built my 3X3 160 meter mono-bander. Working backward through the math, he used 1.875 for the K factor for; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00017.html (7,731 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:50:00 +0100 (CET); backwards. If you get it too high the tuning will be needlessly sharp and there will be a little more tank heat.< Another problem if the Q gets too low is that the harmonic output tends to start risi; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00019.html (7,515 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Jim Tonne" <tonne@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:27:49 -0500; W8JI wrote (in part): If you have analysis along with the design portion of some software, then you can see what is going on. That is why PI-EL shows the magnitude response, the return loss and all o; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00021.html (7,444 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:18:01 -0600; Heh heh... And I experienced something similar, first hand, when I got my QSL card from the FCC. It was back in my Novice days ('62), running a Knight Kit T-50 [-807-], tuning the output for "best" o; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00022.html (8,608 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <mmornhin@gmx.net>; Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:30:02 -0300; Hi Steve, I prefer not using any such "fudge factors", but instead calculate the real situation, based on the actual tube and operating condition. I will explain this with an example: Let's assume th; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00024.html (9,677 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: "Steve Flood" <flood@ixi.net>; Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:41:38 -0700; Thanks Manfred, that makes sense to me. But then I wonder why fudge factors are used at all? Your example calculation doesn't appear any more complicated than the "fudged" handbook equations. As a n; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00034.html (9,990 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Plate Load Calc. (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <mmornhin@gmx.net>; Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 10:56:08 -0300; Hi Steve, I share your wondering! Actually, in some newer books they are not used. It seems that some author in the dark ages of electronics came up experimentally with these fudge factors, without u; /archives//html/Amps/2007-03/msg00135.html (14,928 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]