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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Tuner\s+Loss\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:17:32 -0500; But you can do a reasonably good job of avoiding the problems associated with physics if the underlying physics is understood. All tuners have loss. Some designs have less loss than others. A well-b; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00076.html (9,298 bytes)
2. [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:57:35 -0500; I need to correct myself. I was reading data from the MFJ-974 tuner. Perhaps MFJ should include a cooling fan! However, even higher losses occur on 10m with the Palstar AT4K. Paul, W9AC _____________; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00080.html (9,349 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: n8de@thepoint.net; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:27:27 -0500; Paul is absolutely on point! The major reasons for excessive heat in a tuner include (but are not limited to): Wire used for loading/tuning coil is too small gauge Slider/roller on roller coil is NOT; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00082.html (10,191 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:40:19 -0500; 165W of loss in a well constructed tuner shouldnt even be a discussion point. Tank circuit loss in a 1500W amp is much more and we accept it as normal. Carl KM1H _____________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00083.html (9,769 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@inbox.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:46:44 -0800; Or you're running it on RTTY. 73 Jim W7RY _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00084.html (10,225 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:19:44 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Absolute nonsense. Apples and oranges. Reactances such as found in a properly designed tuner should be nearly lossless. A linear amplifier can not be lossless because a sine; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00086.html (9,909 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Shane Youhouse" <kd6vxi@gmail.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:47:34 -0800; It seems to me that the losses in a tuner typically will be effected by the transformation ratio. There is loss in any network that transforms impedance that I've been able to find. Circulating curre; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00088.html (11,291 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:53:07 -0500; I would expact that sort of comment from you. It was only meant to show that the coil heat we take for granted in an amp is rarely a concern and many (even the most expesive) take no special cooling; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00093.html (10,231 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: Ron Youvan <ka4inm@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:58:12 +0000; I think there are losses to everything. (but only in the resistances not in the reactance) I am sure the losses are proportional to the current in the resistance. -- Ron KA4INM - Endless Loop: n. see; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00096.html (10,111 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Shane Youhouse" <kd6vxi@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:57:07 -0700; ALSO: In reading up on 3-1000 and 4-1000 tubes, I noticed that one of them actually goes into the output network losses, and Eimac puts them about 10 percent..... IE, they say the PLATE output power; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00098.html (11,138 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: ToddRoberts2001@aol.com; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:44:10 -0400 (EDT); Losses in your typical commercial tuner are in the inductor as the low C used on 80-160 are the problem. This was shown decades ago in ARRL reviews of available tuners.On 160 in particular it was sho; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00099.html (7,665 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:40:48 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Make that the SQUARE of the current in the resistance. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.c; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00106.html (9,337 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Roger (sub1)" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:04:05 -0400; The Palstar AT5K has a table in the manual that shows losses based on the impedance the tuner is seeing plus how the tuner is used. It demonstrates that losses can be as high as 16% (which is nearly; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00122.html (9,932 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:47:37 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I am currently operating the BARTG RTTY contest and using a Palstar AT2K tuner for my 80 meter antenna. The SWR on that antenna is 3:1 at best and more than that off the 'swe; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00141.html (10,553 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:37:40 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I am currently operating the BARTG RTTY contest and using a Palstar AT2K tuner for my 80 meter antenna. The SWR on that antenna is 3:1 at best and more than that off the 'swe; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00142.html (8,204 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:22:15 -0700; Roger, That is a good point. I have a Palstar AT5K and am aware of the "more C and less L" but haven't been successful at finding more than one setting for a match. I haven't really spent very much t; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00144.html (10,888 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Roger (sub1)" <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:17:02 -0400; When calculating the "worst case scenario" (a setting that uses too high an L into a very low impedance) according to the Palstar AT-5K manual a solid key down carrier the losses would still be a fra; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00151.html (7,663 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@roadrunner.com>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:34 -0400; Here is a fun program to play with: http://fermi.la.asu.edu/w9cf/tuner/tuner.html You will see that the worst case is generally trying to match low impedance (high current) loads. You can play with t; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00152.html (7,462 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:46:59 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: The way I do it is to set both caps to max, then adjust the inductor for a dip, however slight. Then adjust ONE of the caps for a greater dip and back and forth between that; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00157.html (9,700 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] Tuner Loss (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:12:33 -0400; One advantage of the reversible "L" is that the tuning/matching function is generally optimized with one set of variables. But care is needed in the switched reversing design to keep high coil Q acro; /archives//html/Amps/2011-03/msg00166.html (10,641 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]