Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Retraction\s+with\s+regard\s+to\s+the\s+SB220\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Retraction\s+with\s+regard\s+to\s+the\s+SB220\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Carter" <amps@hidden-valley.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:22:06 -0400; Okay, someone just told me I've committed a faux pas. I've come here to correct myself. There's a subject regarding my two project amps (both SB-220's) that just isn't discussed in public anymore due; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00300.html (7,865 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: Robert Morris <robrk@nidhog.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:37:03 -0400; Try one rule...if it works, don't fix it. Try them before you rip them apart. When you get them back together and they don't work, was it before or after? There are hundreds of SB220's on the air tha; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00301.html (8,474 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Jeff Carter" <amps@hidden-valley.com>; Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:05:22 -0400; Well, I probably would, except the decision was already made for me by the previous owner(s). They're already in pieces. I have purposely acquired guaranteed non-working units, precisely because I wa; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00302.html (9,038 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:26:51 -0400; You being new didn't make any mistakes. We just have some people who are too sensitive about some things. When a newbie asks a question it's not the same as an "old timer" who is well known asking th; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00303.html (10,350 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:00:58 -0400; You have received some good advice, at least what I see that made it to the forum. Yes, there was a period where voodo science raised its head for awhile on here. I would suggest two modifications ho; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00305.html (11,563 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: "DC" <daclark56@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:20:42 -0400; Not a very good way to welcome new people, kind of makes even me feel unwelcome. KD8Z@ARRL.NET _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.conte; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00318.html (12,286 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Retraction with regard to the SB220 (score: 1): Author: Vic K2VCO <vic@rakefet.com>; Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:26:03 -0700; Speaking of the parasitic suppressors, Heath used carbon composition resistors which often increase in value over time -- especially if they have overheated, which can happen if the amp is used heavi; /archives//html/Amps/2008-03/msg00320.html (8,184 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]