Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:dezrat1242@yahoo.com: 1185 ]

Total 1185 documents matching your query.

181. Re: [Amps] RF parts and parasitics!! (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:59:00 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: My tired old eyes read his statement "When grid current is absent, the grid-to-cathode impedance is nearly an open circuit" and paraphrased that as "very high". Did I err? 73
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00526.html (9,544 bytes)

182. [Amps] GS-23B construction article (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:51:19 -0700
There is a great construction article using the GS-23B (4CX1600U) at: http://www.nd2x.net/K5GW.html It is a 432 MHz amp, which is a band I'm not interested in, but the article is well worth a read an
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00527.html (7,175 bytes)

183. Re: [Amps] RF parts and parasitics!! (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:09:43 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Correct, no difference. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00530.html (8,490 bytes)

184. Re: [Amps] RF parts and parasitics!! (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:03:45 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Pay attention, Carl. We ARE discussing the Super Cathode circuit. Here's the entire paragraph that I quoted one sentence from: "There are obviously major flaws with the super
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00536.html (10,531 bytes)

185. Re: [Amps] RF parts and parasitics!! (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:15:40 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I suppose if you drive ONLY the cathode-grid circuit while the tube is floating in mid-air and have no other circuit components connected, you will find a high impedance when
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00537.html (9,473 bytes)

186. Re: [Amps] 4CX1600U - too good to be true? (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:50:08 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Thanks for the info, Alex. Great website there, lots of goodies for sale. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00544.html (8,685 bytes)

187. Re: [Amps] GG amplifier input impedance (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:01:56 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Perhaps he is, but he should say so. The entire article is about grounded grid amplifiers, not the characteristics of a tube disconnected from all circuitry. The paragraph wh
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00545.html (10,324 bytes)

188. Re: [Amps] GG amplifier input impedance (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:56:50 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Exactly. Not wanting to state the obvious, but that is why I prefer to get my information from peer-reviewed documents whenever possible. Non peer-reviewed stuff may be right
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00550.html (10,116 bytes)

189. Re: [Amps] Tube gain vs frequency (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:50:44 -0700
This discussion would not be complete without mention of tubes which actually take advantage of the transit time effect - TWT's (Traveling Wave Tubes) and Klystrons. There may be others too. I haven'
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00552.html (7,747 bytes)

190. Re: [Amps] Not the Diacrode (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:46:29 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: But you won't need any high voltage DC. The other guy will hear your filament. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contestin
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00568.html (7,183 bytes)

191. Re: [Amps] peers (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:18:26 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Peer reviews should be done before publication, not after. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.c
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00573.html (6,946 bytes)

192. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:01:38 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: The real key to transformer survivability when running RTTY is the amount of DC plate current drawn. The transformer does not care which position the bias switch is in. If yo
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00606.html (9,066 bytes)

193. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:33:12 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Inefficient, yes, but how could that possibly be hazardous? Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.cont
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00617.html (9,181 bytes)

194. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:23:28 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I think you are mistaken about the circulating currents going up. If that really was happening, the voltages across each of the pi-network elements would also go up. Since th
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00624.html (9,573 bytes)

195. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:09:45 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I get the feeling we're talking about two different things here. Just to be clear, the pi-network, properly tuned, "looks" like a pure resistance at a certain value to the tu
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00628.html (9,667 bytes)

196. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:24:36 -0700
That part is correct, however only the efficiency suffers. No harm is done.. That part is incorrect. The voltages and currents do not increase when power is reduced. They decrease. 73, Bill W6WRT ___
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00629.html (9,133 bytes)

197. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:15:43 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: There is your fundamental error. Simply by reducing the drive (without retuning), you DO NOT change the impedance the network presents to the tube. The impedance is the same
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00636.html (9,104 bytes)

198. Re: [Amps] Loaded output circuits (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:43:53 -0700
Correct, although W4TV disagrees. Correct Correct, but not relevant to the original question. It can only rise if you RETUNE THE TANK CIRCUIT. The original question was about reducing drive WITHOUT R
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00643.html (8,041 bytes)

199. Re: [Amps] SB-220 bias question (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:06 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: That was not the original question. You are talking about RETUNING after lowering power, and if you do that then I agree - Q will be increased. The original question asked if
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00644.html (9,183 bytes)

200. [Amps] Q vs Load vs Tuning: Myths debunked (score: 1)
Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:07:16 -0700
For anyone following the thread on plate tank loading and Q vs drive, if your brain has turned to mush and you are tired of the whole thing, feel free to delete and move on. But if you are interested
/archives//html/Amps/2009-08/msg00650.html (9,812 bytes)

Current List: 181 - 200
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
This search system is powered by Namazu