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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Transformers\s*$/: 123 ]

Total 123 documents matching your query.

41. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:03:54 -0400; Lou, What's funny in the manual, if I recall, Heathkit says the SB-220 can take 100 watts drive. I'm pretty sure I read that in there. In which case, the amp would produce what 2 3-500Z's are really; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00424.html (8,588 bytes)
42. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:14:47 -0400; See Below; ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** Does this also include the schematics? Case in point is the SB-1000, and the SB-230. The SB-230 shows it has an OCV of 2500 volts (really at 25 mA), but at 500 mA cur; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00426.html (12,546 bytes)
43. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:07:08 +0200 (CEST); core size from the output power in watts it needs to deliver.< A 'reductio ad absurdum' suggests that if core size and saturation doesn't matter, there's no need for those big 1MW+ transformers that; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00430.html (7,564 bytes)
44. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:30:04 -0400; All, I want to explain some of this so some don't get confused. When a transformer is first designed, the output power in volt amperes is used to determine the core size needed in square inches or sq; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00432.html (17,698 bytes)
45. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:41:27 -0400; Peter, Exactly! There's not different sizes for different output powers for nothing. Best, Will ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** On 7/16/06 at 9:07 AM Peter Chadwick wrote: _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00433.html (8,136 bytes)
46. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:11:18 +0100; Electromag was something that just didn't lodge in my brain at university and I struggled with inductor and transformer design for ages - especially trying to compare Gauss/Oersteds/inches with Tesl; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00434.html (7,939 bytes)
47. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:46:31 +0100; I can't speak for iron cores, but all the data I've been studying recently for ferrites uses SI units - Teslas and m^2 or mm^2 - there again, it's data from European or Japanese manufacturers. I gues; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00436.html (9,362 bytes)
48. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:15:44 -0400; Perhaps I just didn't understand what you are trying to say Will, but you finally added core cross-section to the equation. I think I understand what you are trying to say. I just wanted to be sure; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00437.html (10,923 bytes)
49. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:23:12 -0400; Just to be clear, no one is suggesting otherwise. But a 10kVA transformer design does NOT come up to kVA and then start limiting. Much of the previous wording in this thread seemed to imply flux den; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00438.html (7,783 bytes)
50. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:24:22 EDT; I don't see how. You don't see how....What? Am I mistaken that the Sb-220 was rated at 2KW PEP input? It does say it on the front panel, though it does not say "input" it does say 2KW amplifier. Or..; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00439.html (7,790 bytes)
51. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:45:01 -0400; ** REPLY SEPARATOR ** Tom, that's correct. The only way it would burn up would be if more current was pulled from the secondary than it could supply thus heating the wire hot, or a higher voltage was; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00440.html (10,248 bytes)
52. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:53:25 -0400; Steve, That's true. The only thing here in the US is every book that we use to teach with uses the CGS or inch system. I think though that the J&P Transformer book which is published and written in t; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00441.html (11,278 bytes)
53. Re: [Amps] transformers (score: 1): Author: "Roy Koeppe" <royanjoy@ncn.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:04:31 -0500; Just thinking about, "The SB220 transformer was designed for a kilowatt INPUT DC, which was the legal input when it was designed. This was about 450 mA at about 2200 volts. It was...(etc)" If this is; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00442.html (7,731 bytes)
54. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:03:07 -0700; The measured PEP output of a SB-220 is c. 1500W max with voice SSB on 40m, so the "2kW" would have to be peak input. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00445.html (12,431 bytes)
55. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:12:08 -0700; I don't see how. The measured open contact breakdown potential of a SB-220's bandswitch is c. 5000v at sea level. The extant +/- peak potential across open contacts during operation is c, 300v less t; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00446.html (9,618 bytes)
56. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: R L Measures <r@somis.org>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:55:51 -0700; No Correct. I'm saying that there is no 2 to 1 ratio between PEP input and DC indicated input. That the rule of thumb is accurate. R L MEASURES, AG6K. 805-386-3734 r@somis.org _______________________; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00447.html (9,141 bytes)
57. Re: [Amps] Transformers (score: 1): Author: Gudguyham@aol.com; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:28:35 EDT; There has been a lot of discussion over the years, especially in the early days when one did not have a PEP reading watt meter. So, the rule of thumb "at the time" was that PEP was ~ twice the avera; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00448.html (8,091 bytes)
58. Re: [Amps] transformers (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:48:31 -0400; Because the SB200 was not rated at a kilowatt input power, as measured on the meters, on SSB. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.conte; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00451.html (8,221 bytes)
59. Re: [Amps] transformers (score: 1): Author: "Roy Koeppe" <royanjoy@ncn.net>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:06:49 -0500; Because the SB200 was not rated at a kilowatt input power, as measured on the meters, on SSB. But this seems wrong. When we tune up for maximum output with resulting readings of 450 mA at 2200 volts; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00452.html (8,516 bytes)
60. Re: [Amps] transformers (score: 1): Author: "John Vickers" <wa4tt@nlamerica.com>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:08:46 -0400; My memory is not what it used to be, but I built an SB 200 in the early 70s and would almost swear that it was only rated at 1/2 Kw out / 1Kw PEP-- using the accepted rule of thumb (at the time) of t; /archives//html/Amps/2006-07/msg00453.html (9,245 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]