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

Results:

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

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: RFlabnotes at aol.com (RFlabnotes@aol.com); Date: Tue Apr 15 12:58:07 2003; I have read the comments on the use of an RF transformer to step up the output impedance of the PINET simply for the purpose of trying to get away with an undersized loading capacitor. This sounds li; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00155.html (7,922 bytes)
2. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: philk5pc at tyler.net (Phil Clements); Date: Tue Apr 15 13:45:18 2003; Almost all transmatches and "antenna tuners" built for the last 25 + years have such a transformer; only wired in reverse. No need to re-invent the wheel here. They work fine as long as power limits; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00156.html (8,517 bytes)
3. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: RFlabnotes at aol.com (RFlabnotes@aol.com); Date: Tue Apr 15 14:38:28 2003; Phil: I agree with your overall opinion that this was an economic tradeoff. However, you are oversimplifying a major point, which was what aroused my attention. That is the issue of power loss. The c; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00157.html (8,750 bytes)
4. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: RFlabnotes at aol.com (RFlabnotes@aol.com); Date: Tue Apr 15 15:14:29 2003; Pete: Yes, restricting the transformer to <4MHZ makes a big difference in its design. It can make a HUGE difference. Unfortunately, as happens way too frequently here, people who post the original in; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00158.html (8,878 bytes)
5. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: 2 at vc.net (2); Date: Tue Apr 15 15:17:23 2003; my wheel transformer quasi ? Phil -- The claim is undoubtedly inane. I would take this statement to mean that either the advertising writer who made the claim knows little about amplifiers, or that; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00159.html (9,322 bytes)
6. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: doug at nc.rr.com (Doug Hall); Date: Tue Apr 15 16:22:49 2003; I may be oversimplifying here, but maybe it's unnecessary to go to all this trouble. The figure mentioned was 1 dB of loss at 1500W, which amounts to around 300W by my calculations. 1. Can the balun; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00160.html (7,710 bytes)
7. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: philk5pc at tyler.net (Phil Clements); Date: Tue Apr 15 17:36:22 2003; Your guess is wrong! I have challenged the QRO claims about their products since they came out. Did you not read my posts in the last few days re these products? You are altering my remarks. I NEVER; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00161.html (8,516 bytes)
8. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: philk5pc at tyler.net (Phil Clements); Date: Tue Apr 15 17:52:47 2003; I hardly think so. Not to my knowledge. Well put, Doug! (((73))) Phil, K5PC; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00162.html (7,300 bytes)
9. [Amps] QRO Balun? (score: 1): Author: W4EF at dellroy.com (Michael Tope); Date: Tue Apr 15 22:02:07 2003; doubt Sevick has quite a bit of information in his book "Transmission Line Transformers". According to Sevick's data, measured losses for typical 4:1 ferrite baluns appear to run between 0.05 and 0.; /archives//html/Amps/2003-04/msg00164.html (8,257 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]