Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:W2xj@nyc.rr.com: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [Amps] Tubes vs. Solid State (was) Expert Amps2K-FA:AnyOpinions? (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:15:45 -0700
I saw a paper on liquid cooled SS TXs at the 2011 NAB. Usually liquids other than water are used. On 4/30/12 2:45 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > On 4/30/2012 12:46 PM, Paul Christensen wrote: > > Or..
/archives//html/Amps/2012-04/msg00309.html (7,988 bytes)

22. Re: [Amps] Tubes vs. Solid State (was) Expert Amps2K-FA:AnyOpinions? (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:23:21 -0700
That and some of the current high power transistors are being designed to be directly mounted to a heat sink without an intervening insulator. _______________________________________________ Amps mai
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00006.html (13,053 bytes)

23. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:29:14 -0400
I agree. A complete transmitter would solve many technical issues and depending on the implementation, could drastically improve performance. Solid State broadcast transmitters that transmit digital
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00130.html (11,069 bytes)

24. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 18:20:21 -0400
A good portion of this has already been done. Check the HPSDR group. Also look at the ADAT. The final hurdle is to do this at the legal limit. We did have transmitters back when AM was dominant. I fo
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00133.html (11,281 bytes)

25. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:19:19 -0400
Well AM does not require EER. We have used EER techniques for decades to trick AM transmitters to transmit various things other than AM. EER or envelope elimination and recovery in the old analog day
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00138.html (13,113 bytes)

26. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:51:37 -0400
Dan I agree generally and in principle. There may be a few different ways to do this which is well worth discussing. I am not sure how I got misquoted below. _________________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00176.html (11,645 bytes)

27. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:53:34 -0400
What is being proposed is more like a legal limit flex radio. SDR goes a long way in helping to forestall obsolesce. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00177.html (13,511 bytes)

28. Re: [Amps] Why are we building amps rather then transmitters? (Tubes vs. Solid State) (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 14:35:46 -0400
When I/Q is via Ethernet, I do not see a connector issue. Any I/Q device I purchase supports Ethernet or I don't buy it. I/Q over Ethernet opens the door to things that were previously very difficult
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00179.html (8,882 bytes)

29. Re: [Amps] Antenna tuner loss (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 17:22:15 -0400
Ts are not necessarily High pass nor are Ls for that matter. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00187.html (12,408 bytes)

30. Re: [Amps] Antenna tuner loss (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:43:45 -0400
I guess you are only familiar with leading Ts and not lagging networks. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listi
/archives//html/Amps/2012-05/msg00195.html (14,360 bytes)

31. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:52:13 -0400
That is not entirely correct. A 'digital' antenna is generally one that is either omni or has a wide beamwidth. A bowtie is a 'digital' antenna. Yagis and logs do not usually work so well. Unfortunat
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00059.html (9,608 bytes)

32. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:07:11 -0400
The statement regarding WBBM is not really correct and is typical of why we should be cautious when reading things on the Internet and taking the information as fact. From the mouths of my corporate
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00061.html (11,625 bytes)

33. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:09:01 -0400
I am not sure I understand your point. The bowtie is a good antenna for many reasons. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00062.html (10,238 bytes)

34. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:17:02 -0400
To a degree, yes. It is that the newer DTV tuner chips perform better under multipath conditions where NTSC was very sensitive to ghosts and required a very directional antenna. With DTV, scanning do
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00066.html (11,701 bytes)

35. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:19:21 -0400
I disagree. No one in their right mind would have used an omni to receive NTSC. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailm
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00067.html (11,656 bytes)

36. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:31:26 -0400
An omni would only work in very flat country. I have lived in the country and I have built cable TV head ends in the country and I never saw an omni until after the DTV transition. Semantics can be p
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00069.html (10,111 bytes)

37. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:06:11 -0400
I guess there are some who make an argument even when we essentially agree. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/l
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00074.html (11,636 bytes)

38. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 05:34:34 -0400
I do not see what a stroll down memory lane has to do with DTV. One has to think differently. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contes
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00080.html (16,088 bytes)

39. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 05:40:22 -0400
But the decision and implementation was among about 3 people in New York. They knew exactly what they were doing and budgets, including contingencies, were adjusted accordingly in New York. Any major
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00081.html (10,297 bytes)

40. Re: [Amps] Amplified TV Antenna (score: 1)
Author: W2XJ <w2xj@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 07:18:04 -0400
You got what you got. In most cases the antenna had to be adjusted for each channel. With DTV this is not very practical as the TV must scan the channels seen by the antenna at that instant. ________
/archives//html/Amps/2012-07/msg00085.html (9,886 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu