Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Ferrites\s+31\s+vs\.\s+77\s+material\s*$/: 45 ]

Total 45 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Don <w7wll@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:42:28 -0700
Dave is spot on. In a couple of cases I'm familiar with, China not only delivered goods with quality equal to or better than US manufactured items but with their technical capability and desire to ex
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00011.html (15,550 bytes)

22. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:03:05 -0800
On 11/2/2019 6:25 AM, Roger Parsons via TowerTalk wrote: The posts from both N6RK and AB7E support my statement that variability in ferrite parameters has been known for a very long time. You're the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00016.html (9,434 bytes)

23. [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:52:37 +0000 (UTC)
Perhaps you do 'suspect that Steve did'. But you can't possibly know, and your comments were indeed disparaging. I presume that 'virtually all of your earlier recommendations' are also WRONG! How doe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00017.html (8,771 bytes)

24. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:42:24 -0800
Roger, That was the most juvenile retort I have ever seen on the reflector. Bob K6UJ _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00018.html (9,164 bytes)

25. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: "Wes Attaway \(N5WA\)" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:24:25 -0600
Agreed. Jim made a perfectly reasonable response. -- Wes Attaway (N5WA) (318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA Computer/Cellphone Forensics AttawayForensics.com -- --Original Message-- From: TowerTalk [mail
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00019.html (10,139 bytes)

26. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:02:29 -0700
I have the same impression.  I saw nothing wrong with K9YC's comments, while VE3ZI's are childish. Dave   AB7E That was the most juvenile retort I have ever seen on the reflector. Bob K6UJ Perhaps yo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00020.html (10,276 bytes)

27. [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Roger Parsons via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:03:41 +0000 (UTC)
<That was the most juvenile retort I have ever seen on the reflector. > <Agreed.> Very probably, and for that I apologise. Nevertheless, I'm afraid that I am still rather upset at what I perceive to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00021.html (8,733 bytes)

28. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:54:42 -0800
I did not make an attack at all -- indeed my original post pointed to Steve's excellent test jig as something to be followed. I would have been negligent if I had failed to point out that certain of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00022.html (9,311 bytes)

29. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Jim Rhodes <jim@rhodesend.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:50:33 -0600
When I am told by "internet experts" that the way I am doing something is not the "correct way" to do something, I just delete the message. I know what I am doing works and I do not feel that I am ob
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00023.html (9,861 bytes)

30. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 06:21:34 -0600
Gripe all you want but you've used a few examples to try to refute a generalization that has basis in fact. There are far too many cases of poor products from outside US and Europe, not just China,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00024.html (9,197 bytes)

31. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:46:52 -0800
Gripe all you want but you've used a few examples to try to refute a generalization that has basis in fact. There are far too many cases of poor products from outside US and Europe, not just China, t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00025.html (15,183 bytes)

32. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:41:32 -0700
China can made very good products or garbage.  The deciding factor is who is paying them and what quality does that company desire in a product. My experience is with toys and molds.  You got what yo
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00026.html (10,701 bytes)

33. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:52:15 -0700
You could make the same generalizations about U.S. quality if you didn't ignore companies like MFJ or some of the antenna manufacturers that can't seem to put all the required parts in the box. Certa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00027.html (11,209 bytes)

34. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:16:32 -0700
Isn't most JA ham gear Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu made in China these days?  Maybe assembled in JA? You could make the same generalizations about U.S. quality if you didn't ignore companies like MFJ or som
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00030.html (12,013 bytes)

35. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 21:28:32 -0500
This has been an interesting tangential discussion but I would like to now bring it back to my original question...... :-) So far, taking into account the tolerance caveats, the consensus seems to be
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00034.html (10,052 bytes)

36. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:52:30 -0800
You may prefer that, but that sort of bead only works at VHF. My detailed recommendations are here. http://k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf Yes, #31 material is the weapon of choice for 160M - 6M. 73, Jim K
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00036.html (9,420 bytes)

37. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:35:10 -0800
I measured about a dozen of these size beads on RG8 and found a choking resistance under 1000 ohms, IIRC. This was for a passive receive 160m 4 square (W8JI design - top hats, L resonated, R loaded)
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00041.html (11,436 bytes)

38. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:56:32 -0500
Hi Grant, Thank you for that information. I assume that the 1000 ohm choking resistance was for the entire dozen beads not just one bead, correct? What is the recommended choking resistance goal? Is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00061.html (12,184 bytes)

39. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 23:01:48 -0500
Hi Jim, Thank you for your reply and the link to your extremely comprehensive documentation! I read though it at length today and there was much that I did not understand very well. I am going to rea
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00062.html (10,599 bytes)

40. Re: [TowerTalk] Ferrites 31 vs. 77 material (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:28:27 -0800
That conceptual background is in k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf 73, Jim _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesti
/archives//html/Towertalk/2019-11/msg00064.html (9,909 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu