Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+SB\-220\s+Bias\s+Question\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+SB\-220\s+Bias\s+Question\s*$/: 49 ]

Total 49 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:11:54 -0500; Everyone seems to be using different terms in this discussion so no one agrees. Most are saying the right thing but referring to the wrong thing. First, as to the SSB amplifier being tuned properly a; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00645.html (16,485 bytes)
42. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:20:32 -0500; When retuning the amp for max power out when reducing drive is NOT a miss-tuned condition. It is PROPER tuning of the tank circuit for the power being operated. It is however an increased Q condition; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00646.html (11,755 bytes)
43. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:05:22 -0500; I agree. Don WA4NPL _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00649.html (18,087 bytes)
44. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:28:53 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Gary, your analysis of tank circuits in the rest of your post is very well done, but I take issue with the above paragraph. You are confusing gain linearity with efficiency l; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00651.html (10,972 bytes)
45. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:20:34 -0400; If you don't retune the output network when operating in a continuous power mode (CW or RTTY) at a lower power level, the loading will be incorrect. Linearity may or may not suffer, efficiency will; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00654.html (10,710 bytes)
46. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:32:38 -0500; Thank you Bill. No confusion here between gain linearity and efficiency linearity. My example is what you see with a class B linear amplifier. Higher idling current will of course change the efficie; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00658.html (12,189 bytes)
47. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: jeff millar <jeff@wa1hco.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:41:03 -0400; If that line of reasoning were true, then we would be required to never talk softly when transmitting. It seems obvious that once tuned for 1500 watts, any output less than that will result in lower; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00662.html (9,428 bytes)
48. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:01:49 -0500; Wouldn't that defeat the reason for pinning the ALC meter ???? Don WA4NPL ps ... Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt that said , " Talk Softly but carry a big ALC" ____________________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00664.html (9,517 bytes)
49. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:29:39 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Technically you are correct, but it will be mis-tuned in the "good" direction. It is better for that first voice peak to hit the tube when the VDC is a bit high than the othe; /archives//html/Amps/2009-09/msg00010.html (7,729 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 49
Page: [1] [2] [3]