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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RF\s+in\s+the\s+Audio\s*$/: 59 ]

Total 59 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:47:37 -0700; Johnson Matchbox ?? 73, Dick, W1KSZ _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00200.html (25,386 bytes)
42. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Jim Barber <audioguy@q.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:47:38 -0700; I hate to step into this fray, but MFJ does. (no presumtion of quality, of course) He Who Shall Remain Nameless also has a viable circuit on his website. It uses dual roller inductors; a "Balanced L"; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00201.html (24,411 bytes)
43. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:11:46 -0600; There's a tutorial on building a "truely-balanced" antenna tuner on Sevick's web-site. Schematics for a practical unit, as well. After burning out the balun twice in my MBVA, I built one according to; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00203.html (25,883 bytes)
44. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: dalej <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:01:20 -0500; I don't disagree with using the Johnson Matchbox, or using a coax fed dipole. I also have one of those KW matchboxes (it's not for sale) and in past years used coax fed dipoles, but they/it does not; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00207.html (8,505 bytes)
45. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Jim W7RY" <jimw7ry@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:51:37 -0700; I don't seem to find his web site. 73 Jim W7RY _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00208.html (27,969 bytes)
46. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Barrie Smith" <barrie@centric.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:57:01 -0600; He passed away a few years ago. His website is supposed to be still in operation and maintained by someone else. I have no idea where it is. _______________________________________________ Amps maili; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00209.html (50,949 bytes)
47. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Jim Barber <audioguy@q.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:12:56 -0700; That sounds more like LB Cebik, W4RNL. Jerry Sevick W2FMI never had a site of his own that I know of. You have to dance a jig to get into Cebik's, site, but it can be done for free. I don't know if t; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00212.html (55,037 bytes)
48. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:32:27 -0400; "As noted by Roy Lewallen, W7EL,[2] putting a choke balun on the input of an unbalanced tuner to drive a balanced line is useless. It introduces a ``hot'' tuner case which must be isolated with no be; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00214.html (10,591 bytes)
49. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Roger (sub1)" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:26:50 -0400; These are antennas we are talking about. If it works as in transfers power efficiently and doesn't wipe out anything with RFI then "it's proper". 73 Roger (K8RI) _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00215.html (9,054 bytes)
50. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:23:33 -0400; I have all QST's from 1926, CQ from #1 to 1972, all HRM, dozens of both handbooks and like to read. Antenna tuners were always popular subjects and some were really elaborate. One fully balanced unit; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00216.html (12,309 bytes)
51. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:41:22 -0500; ( and other dispariging comments ) On the other hand, I find our resident Senior Statesman's inputs to be "real-world-correct". Don W4DNR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00217.html (9,147 bytes)
52. [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:47:17 -0700; The last place I would insert a balun is at any point in a OWL fed antenna. Do the twists as have been the norm since the 30's and live with whatever unbalance remains. reason, same deal. Since OWL t; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00218.html (14,218 bytes)
53. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 21:22:28 -0700; Not necessarily. See my measured data. YES! That's another reason for 5,000 ohms, and why more is better. As I said before, I don't have an application for OWL. All my antennas (about 15 at least cou; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00219.html (12,399 bytes)
54. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:16:37 -0400; If you want to know what is happening as you make changes you need to establish a set of benchmarks first. You and I have the test equipment to do a lot of the measurements, most do not. Many may be; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00220.html (10,235 bytes)
55. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:58:15 -0400; That's an important but often difficult step for most folks. Myself, I've been tempted to proclaim the superior performance of my open line dipole with its symmetrically balanced remote ATU. The tru; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00223.html (9,416 bytes)
56. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:59:52 -0700; Paul, It isn't as simple as that. The ANTENNA is also part of the balance equation, and if the antenna is unbalanced, it will cause imbalance in the line. I summarized many common causes of antenna i; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00224.html (8,388 bytes)
57. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: Paul Manuel <k4pdm@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:05:20 -0700 (PDT); I'm not necessarily advocating this and I'm not saying theory is wrong, but I have several computers in my home and 6 directv satellite receivers. I have no appreciable noise on my balanced line ant; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00225.html (8,296 bytes)
58. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Fuqua, Bill L" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:25:00 -0400; How does a Zepp antenna work? It would be the ultimate unbalanced antenna and it is fed with open feedline and a inductive link coupling. 73 Bill wa4lav Paul, It isn't as simple as that. The ANTENNA; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00229.html (9,612 bytes)
59. Re: [Amps] RF in the Audio (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:45:57 -0400; Good points Jim. However, if the line was truly balanced for the entire distance of the open-line feeder, then the antenna portion, and its influence, is already taken into consideration. To your po; /archives//html/Amps/2011-09/msg00230.html (9,354 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 59
Page: [1] [2] [3]