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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+DSL\s+Filter\s+Update\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:29:05 -0800 (PST); Just to advise the group that a couple of other stations have had success with this filter. Nick, VE3FJ, also checked out its frequency response with the following results: 1.85MHz -26dB 3.65MHz -46d; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00006.html (7,339 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:42:04 -0800; Roger, Exactly how was the response measured? What source and load impedances? 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00007.html (7,395 bytes)
3. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:01:26 -0800 (PST); I know that Nick used an N2PK VNA - .png attached - but no more than that. I did do a few sums on the filter design a few weeks ago and was surprised to find that the design impedance is close to 50; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00008.html (8,738 bytes)
4. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:38:41 -0800; Thanks Roger. The characteristic impedance of most paired cable, including audio cables and telephone cables, is on the order of 70-100 ohms. CAT5 is 100 ohms. 600 ohms has not been used in pro audio; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00010.html (11,066 bytes)
5. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:20:48 -0700; I have designed many devices in the T1/E1/DSL arena. The line impedance for lines (without bridged taps) was always 110 to 120 ohms. The slight variation was due to the lines being 22, 24, or 26 gaug; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00011.html (10,205 bytes)
6. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Andy" <ingraham.ma.ultranet@rcn.com>; Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 18:41:29 -0500; The source/load impedance do indeed affect the shape. In the vicinity of cutoff it changes the Q and you can get peaking or very gradual rolloff with the wrong impedance. And the stopband attenuatio; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00012.html (7,576 bytes)
7. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 21:24:22 -0500; Hi, Larrry. I'd hang a couple of 180 degree hybrids on there and sweep 'em. 100 ohms is probably close enough. I have a purpose-built North Hills center tapped transfomer for UTP DSL measurements, bu; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00013.html (7,688 bytes)
8. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 21:11:39 -0800 (PST); I stand corrected about feed/load impedance and measurement of filter response. I should have said 'If the feed and load impedances are purely resistive and reasonably close to the filter design impe; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00015.html (8,403 bytes)
9. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Christopher E. Brown" <cbrown@woods.net>; Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:05:38 -0500 (CDT); Keep in mind that ADSL2+ has signaling up to 2.2Mhz, and that the default S/N threshold to use a channel is normally 6 - 9 db (default varies between DSLAM vendor/model, providers tune based on cable; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00016.html (8,710 bytes)
10. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:31:46 -0800; That's sort of the direction I was thinking about. Note that one can get quite serious with a common mode choke without affecting the differential mode circuit at all. Thanks for the info re: 2.2 MHz; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00017.html (8,447 bytes)
11. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:46:37 -0700 (PDT); I think I have already covered that in several postings. Of course the filter is a considerable compromise in a number of respects, but a cut-off of 3MHz would not protect against a 160m transmitter; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00018.html (10,078 bytes)
12. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:16:27 -0800; You're looking at the elephant through a differential-mode hole in the tent. Don't rule out the value of common-mode suppression, which is considerable. The KY and K-Com filters are both quite well t; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00019.html (8,554 bytes)
13. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Christopher E. Brown" <cbrown@woods.net>; Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:34:36 -0500 (CDT); Yes, you did. I was just providing a bit more specific info as to the effect. I think I have already covered that in several postings. Of course the filter is a considerable compromise in a number of; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00020.html (10,564 bytes)
14. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Christopher E. Brown" <cbrown@woods.net>; Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 20:43:14 -0500 (CDT); Depends on the DSL gear, ADSL1 cuts off around 1.1, VHDSL uses much higher freqs. Common use these days in the US is ADSL2+, with ADSL1 hardware cycling out of production. Also, remember that RF can; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00021.html (9,433 bytes)
15. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: Roger Parsons <ve3zi@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:55:43 -0700 (PDT); "You're looking at the elephant through a differential-mode hole in the tent." Not at all. I am very well aware that there are many ways to kill a cat, but this thread started where common mode choki; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00022.html (8,225 bytes)
16. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:43:27 -0800; Many thanks, Chris. For those of us not working in the telco world, please translate DSLAM, CPE, and NID. :) Your point about RF entering the cable at one point and traveling along the cable for some; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00023.html (10,392 bytes)
17. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Christopher E. Brown" <cbrown@woods.net>; Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:40:12 -0500 (CDT); DSLAM: Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (Terminates the upstream side of the DSL line, 24, 48 and 512 port chassis are common. Back side of the DSLAM will normally be ethernet or ATM depend; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00024.html (12,156 bytes)
18. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:10:54 -0800; OK. One can be really brute force with a common mode choke if it doesn't add capacitance across the line. You're looking at single turn data very different from what I see in the online catalog. It s; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00025.html (10,737 bytes)
19. Re: [RFI] DSL Filter Update (score: 1): Author: "Christopher E. Brown" <cbrown@woods.net>; Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:26:36 -0500 (CDT); Looking at the online site, the final impedance cure charts that show 1 2 and 3 turns and figuring from there. I am using the 2.4 in for coax, for the phoneline and DSL on the small cores they are wr; /archives//html/RFI/2009-03/msg00027.html (12,059 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]