Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Material\s+75\s+vs\s+Material\s+31\s+Ferrites\s+for\s+EMI\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Material\s+75\s+vs\s+Material\s+31\s+Ferrites\s+for\s+EMI\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [RFI] Material 75 vs Material 31 Ferrites for EMI (score: 1): Author: Chuck Gooden <Chuck.Gooden@comcast.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:10:07 -0600; Fair-Rite has introduced a new low frequency material (#75), I was wondering if someone could comment if this new material would be better that #31 for EMI suppression. According to the Fair-rite web; /archives//html/RFI/2017-02/msg00019.html (8,520 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] Material 75 vs Material 31 Ferrites for EMI (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:42:20 -0800; Chuck, I looked into this half a year ago when someone asked the same question. The answer was no. I don't remember why. Study my material on this topic. Below 5 MHz, we need multiple turns through a; /archives//html/RFI/2017-02/msg00022.html (9,873 bytes)
3. Re: [RFI] Material 75 vs Material 31 Ferrites for EMI (score: 1): Author: EZ Rhino <EZRhino@fastmovers.biz>; Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:41:21 -0700; Uh, I think you mean clamp-on's are a waste of money if configured in a single pass on a cable....if you can do multiple turns, you're good. Chris KF7P Chuck, I looked into this half a year ago when; /archives//html/RFI/2017-02/msg00023.html (10,096 bytes)
4. Re: [RFI] Material 75 vs Material 31 Ferrites for EMI (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:47:17 -0800; Right. All discussed in the material on my website. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi; /archives//html/RFI/2017-02/msg00025.html (8,778 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]