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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+SB220\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:40:31 -0500; Mike Hyder's comments are very thorough and right on. I would just add four points: -- The Harbach parasitic supressor mods are based on Rich Measures' work. I took them out of my amplifier years ago; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00054.html (9,494 bytes)
22. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:49:42 -0500; At 09:00 AM 11/4/03 -0800, rlm < > wrote: ** The SB-220 has a current-limiting type filament transformer which limits inrush-I to 60% of what Eimac allows. However, a stepstart is still needed becaus; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00055.html (8,709 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:15:14 -0500; At 04:57 AM 11/5/03 -0800, R.Measures wrote: ** "This ship is unsinkable". "This amplifier is unconditionally stable". -- Wait 'till Pete installs a new pair of tubes. Been there, done that, NOS Eima; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00056.html (8,640 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:06:28 -0800; ** Pete -- Do you start it on the CW position? Does it run from a 20A, 240V circuit? ** the useful emissive life of the 3-500Z cathode is c. 20k-hours at 4.75V and c. 2k-hours at 5.25V. ____________; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00061.html (8,267 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:35:07 -0500; I ran into the same issue many years ago when I owned a SB-230 conduction cooled amplifier during my high-school days. The in-rush was so strong that the ON/OFF rocker switch (with internal circuit; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00064.html (8,874 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: "on4kj" <on4kj@skynet.be>; Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:52:42 +0100; Hey Pete, Just explain them what's a cold solder joint, and how it looks like. To much plasterers and plumbers at work in electronic gear build with discrete elements........hi hi. 73's jos on4kj ___; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00071.html (9,636 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:51:24 -0800; _________________________________________________________ The Commander HF-2500 has a zero-crossing power switch and I can verify it is great. No thump when turned on, just nice and smooth like it sh; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00083.html (8,850 bytes)
28. [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: ZL2AAA <zl2aaa@paradise.net.nz>; Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:14:24 +1300; Thanks to all who replied to my request for information .The concensus appears that with suitable mods mainly antenna relay and caps it should continue to survive .I will pass these comments on .Tnx; /archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00084.html (7,380 bytes)
29. [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Juan M. Chazarra EA5RS" <ea5rs@ono.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:17:26 +0100; I am checking an old SB220 which has been off the air for many years. 1. One of the AC power circuit breakers is open, how do these devices work, is this part currently available? 2. Fan is not worki; /archives//html/Amps/2005-03/msg00548.html (6,499 bytes)
30. [Amps] SB220 (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:07:04 -0400; Roy, The law was 1 kW DC input with suitable metering. That specification included a dampening or response factor in the meters, and to run a full KW you had to be able to read HV and Ip at the same; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00455.html (11,055 bytes)
31. [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: "roller" <roller@comtech-data.se>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:40:13 +0200; Hello.i am a SB220 owner.i just got it to work.clean it upp and all. after 4 years.but somthing is wrong i get 550 W output?... and when i try the 3-500z each in single use i get 550w out on a single; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00364.html (6,444 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: Paul M Dunphy <amplifier@ve1dx.net>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:38:52 -0300; Does this happen with both tubes (does it matter which one you use when you test it with a single tube?) The obvious answer is that one tube is soft or completely dead, and the other one is good, but; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00365.html (7,124 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:25:38 -0400; In grounded grid the gain does not change as much as we expect when we parallel more and more tubes. This is because in a grounded grid amplifier the output is in series with the input and the imped; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00366.html (7,348 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:29:42 -0400; With 50-60W of drive you should see around 500W out with a single tube in the SB220 in the CW position and tuned for 125 ma grid current. Not much difference with 50W into two tubes. With 2 tubes and; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00368.html (8,043 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 18:53:16 -0400; I'm sorry, that should have said 1kW CW input 2kW PEP SSB **INPUT**...not 2kW PEP output. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contestin; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00370.html (7,190 bytes)
36. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:59:50 -0400; My impression is that the 1 KW limit was regulatory rather than technical. The amplifier is capable of rather more - mine puts out 900-1200 watts depending on band (including the exciter power, of co; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00371.html (7,872 bytes)
37. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:52:59 -0400; The SB220 was designed to meet the FCC rules current at the time it was manufactured. There was never any thought or consideration given to exceeding those limits. No one ever dreamed the FCC would; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00372.html (9,033 bytes)
38. Re: [Amps] sb220 (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:17:00 -0400; Well, there goes another myth of my youth - thanks for clearing up the exciter power issue. As for power output, my decently-calibrated wattmeter says my SB-220 has been producing roughly 175% the de; /archives//html/Amps/2007-04/msg00375.html (9,496 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 38
Page: [1] [2]