Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+FW\:\s+Corsair\s+vs\s+Corsair\s+II\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+FW\:\s+Corsair\s+vs\s+Corsair\s+II\s*$/: 30 ]

Total 30 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:42:20 +0100; PLEASE DISREGARD MY PREVIOUS POST, WHERE I THOUGHT A BROADBAND TERMINATION WAS NOT NECESSARY. Guys, in my previous post on this topic, I WAS WRONG. :-( (sri) Jerry was kind enough to point that out t; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00135.html (13,918 bytes)
2. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:24:00 +0000; The CorsairII has what appears to be a Bridge-Tee diplexer between the mixer and the Norton amplifier - R23, R24, L5, L6, C15, C16. However, the values of L5 and C16 look very odd. I don't know the v; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00136.html (7,860 bytes)
3. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:24:15 +0000; Rick, you might have been wrong but thanks for the discussion and posting Jerry's response here! Very mucn appreciate technical discussion of the older Ten-Tec receivers. 73, Barry N1EU _____________; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00137.html (17,143 bytes)
4. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:28:17 +0000; That should have been: "....... you'd expect around 5.6uH to resonate with C15 at 9MHz" Steve G3TXQ I don't know the value of L6 (part# 21056), but you'd expect around 6.6uH to resonate with C15 at 9; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00138.html (8,244 bytes)
5. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Haigwood" <jerry@w5jh.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:01:18 -0500; Hi Steve, I agree with you. I don't quite understand what is going on with the convoluted Bridge-Tee diplexer on the Corsair II. A properly designed Bridge-Tee diplexer with a Q of 1 would have L5, L; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00145.html (10,316 bytes)
6. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:13:16 +0000; Jerry, It's yet another error on the schematic! I lifted L5 this morning and measured it: 330nH, not 3.3mH; it resonates with C16 (1000pF) close to 9MHz. L9 and L10 on that same schematic are similar; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00146.html (9,350 bytes)
7. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Haigwood" <jerry@w5jh.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:29:02 -0500; Hi Steve, Ah, this is funny. I was typing this email to inform you that I think the value of L5 should be 0.33 UHy when I received your email. I didn't measure L5, I just took a guess that it might b; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00147.html (10,718 bytes)
8. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:45:55 +0000; Jerry, Both the L and the C in the diplexer parallel arm are fixed value; so low Q sounds good, given the tolerance issue :) However the L in the series arm of the diplexer is adjustable, and the boo; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00148.html (9,297 bytes)
9. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:10:22 +0000; Simulating the TT diplexer I see just a couple of S11 excursions worse than -18dB (SWR=1.3:1), at 10MHz and 8MHz. Steve G3TXQ Both the L and the C in the diplexer parallel arm are fixed value; so low; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00149.html (9,246 bytes)
10. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:26:59 -0400; Steve, are L9 and L10 equal to 820nH (0.82uH), and not 8.2mH as indicated? I've been compiling a Corsair II manual errata so just want to make sure. thanks & 73, Barry N1EU __________________________; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00150.html (10,803 bytes)
11. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:34:22 +0000; Barry, I can't say for certain - I didn't lift them to measure! They are the same style of component as L5, and clearly the values can't be 8.2mH as shown. It seems likely the same sort of error has; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00151.html (9,531 bytes)
12. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "Jerry Haigwood" <jerry@w5jh.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:06:30 -0500; Steve and Barry, After studying the schematic for a while, I think L1, L2, L3, L4, L7, L8 are all 100 uHy and not 100 mHy. First, 100 mHy inductors are huge devices and second that large of value is; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00153.html (11,053 bytes)
13. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:13:35 +0000; A few calculations suggest that L9 and L10 *must* be 8.8uH, but I'll take a look and check the board. I agree that L11 and L12 must also be wrong - they obviously form some tuning/matching function.; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00154.html (9,997 bytes)
14. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:20:37 +0000; I suspect that the manual error is simply using "mH" instead of "uH". Jerry, I keep a running tally of Corsair II manual errata I run across at http://corsair.wikidot.com/corsair-errata 73, Barry N1E; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00155.html (10,690 bytes)
15. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:06:45 +0100; I also volunteer to create a page on my web site and post Barry's work there. Barry, contact me directly and we'll do this together. 73 Rick, DJ0IP Steve and Barry, After studying the schematic for a; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00156.html (11,864 bytes)
16. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: "ChasW3KC" <w3kc@verizon.net>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:26:41 -0400; Has anyone noted Owners Manual (including schematic and parts lists) errata for the original model Corsair (the Corsair "I") ? Seems there are still plenty of those original models on the air that ma; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00167.html (9,329 bytes)
17. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:36:44 +0000; I took another look at the CorsairII RF Mixer board (80987) inductors this morning: L1, L2, L3, L4, L7, L8: Green, radial body, marked 101. Measured as 100uH L5: Axial body marked Orange-Orange-Silve; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00169.html (9,364 bytes)
18. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <barry.n1eu@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:21:36 +0000; Steve, that essentially confirms the "mH" schematic designation really means "uH". The one discrepancy is L5, which is marked as "3.3mH". You measure 330nH, where schematic indicates 3.3uH or 3300nh; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00170.html (10,408 bytes)
19. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Michael Cheponis <Michael@Cheponis.Com>; Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:44:27 -0700; I have noticed that Ten-Tec uses "mf" to mean "microfarads" - yet everybody EXCEPT Ten-Tec uses "uF" to mean microfarads. I have no idea why they do this. The suffixes I normally see are (where ** is; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00172.html (14,084 bytes)
20. Re: [TenTec] FW: Corsair vs Corsair II (score: 1): Author: Stuart Rohre <rohre@arlut.utexas.edu>; Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:21:21 -0500; Well, some of us 56 year hams also saw mf for microfarads as standard on tube schematics. The use of the Greek letters was unknown until around 1968 in contemporary electronics. mf was used overseas; /archives//html/TenTec/2013-03/msg00175.html (10,173 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]