Mail Archive Search: <+from:catherine.james@att.net>

Results:

References: [ +from:catherine.james@att.net: 130 ]

Total 130 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [Amps] blowing up CMOS (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:21:02 +0000 (UTC); But it's not practical for hams to do that in their home workshops. Grounding straps and anti-static mats, yes. I'll put an anti-static mat on my shopping list. Conductive floor in the shack area is; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00092.html (8,565 bytes)
82. Re: [Amps] blowing up CMOS (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:21:56 +0000 (UTC); Recruit them in New Orleans. :-) -- _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00093.html (7,974 bytes)
83. Re: [Amps] Sunset of old technologies (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:00:55 +0000 (UTC); Mark, I think you are right about this, but the sunset of analog front-ends is happening faster than the HF tube PA one. Price of late-generation analog transceivers: Kenwood TS-590SG, about $1700 Ya; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00160.html (8,328 bytes)
84. Re: [Amps] Sunset of old technologies (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:28:43 +0000 (UTC); Well, that's where the demand is. I don't have sales figures on amps, but I would bet that those priced $1500 or less *far* outsell higher-priced models. Tube amps will never go away until either (1); /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00163.html (8,280 bytes)
85. Re: [Amps] Sunset of old technologies (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:30:06 +0000 (UTC); Kidding aside, there is very little on the market with all the bands and features of the TS-2000. Its design is very dated, especially the DSP. But every time I see someone ask, "What modern radio sh; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00167.html (8,753 bytes)
86. Re: [Amps] Fwd: Amps Digest, Vol 172, Issue 39 (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:54:55 +0000 (UTC); Ah, didn't realize that, thanks. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00171.html (7,435 bytes)
87. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 16:53:50 +0000 (UTC); Manfred, So would it be better to use 4 or or more devices with somewhat lower ratings for linear operation? Is there a cheaper option to use simpler heat sinks that don't have to be carefully machin; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00190.html (8,074 bytes)
88. Re: [Amps] Tubes, transistors, and 'abuse' (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:02:27 +0000 (UTC); Manfred, I'd welcome your opinion on the design. I call it "good" because when it works, it seems to work well, and it's quite compact. I am still learning amplifier design, and I'm not competent to; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00191.html (9,720 bytes)
89. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation / novel concept (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:25:35 +0000 (UTC); I agree, Leigh. For hams, it's overwhelmingly up-front cost that matters, not life-cycle costs or operating costs. It would be interesting to try to compute roughly how many $$$ I have spent on my ra; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00219.html (7,532 bytes)
90. [Amps] Amp design article? (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:43:48 +0000 (UTC); You guys should publish a construction article(s) in QST and other nations' equivalent magazines. A lot of us would love to build such an amp, but we're not competent to design it. Being able to work; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00225.html (8,903 bytes)
91. Re: [Amps] Tubes, transistors, and 'abuse' (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:56:35 +0000 (UTC); Wow. Just -- wow. This is by far the most interesting and educational thing I have read on Amps since joining. I now understand much better what's going on here. THANK YOU MANFRED for taking the time; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00227.html (9,247 bytes)
92. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:05:30 +0000 (UTC); Sorry, what is "NFB"? Be careful with those TLAs. :-) 73, Cathy N5WVR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listin; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00260.html (9,282 bytes)
93. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:24:00 +0000 (UTC); Thanks, Jim. I am learning something new here every day. I've been clear for some time on the fundamental conflict between good linearity (indirectly creating good IMD) and efficiency. With the last; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00263.html (9,311 bytes)
94. Re: [Amps] Efficient amplifier design (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:00:20 +0000 (UTC); Hmm, that makes me wonder if lowering the upper frequency would help. It is way more important to run a kilowatt on the lower bands (160, 80, 40), and on 20, than on 17, 15, 12 or 10. How much easier; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00276.html (7,332 bytes)
95. Re: [Amps] Price per Watt Conversation (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 20:56:33 +0000 (UTC); When we get to 3000V, we can have drop-in replacements for our tube amplifier finals! :-) 73, Cathy N5WVR -- Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net> wrote: Yesterday, it was +50V, today it's 65V, tomorrow 7; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00311.html (8,591 bytes)
96. Re: [Amps] Emergency communication (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:58:15 +0000 (UTC); My K1 draws about 55 mA on receive and puts out 7 watts on transmit. Of course it's CW only. :-) I may get a KX2 one of these days. We'll see. Going back to the topic of amps, I have seen very little; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00354.html (9,059 bytes)
97. Re: [Amps] Emergency communication (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:37:42 +0000 (UTC); Unless they provide you with the firmware/software, the schematic may not tell you everything you need to know anyway. They will become ever more true as the industry moved to SDR. __________________; /archives//html/Amps/2017-04/msg00371.html (8,716 bytes)
98. Re: [Amps] HV MOSFETs for RF (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC); This is one reason hams are always challenged in the amplifier area. The commercial users are heavily focused on FM, with its 100% duty cycle but lack of any requirement for linearity. The modes hams; /archives//html/Amps/2017-05/msg00070.html (8,659 bytes)
99. Re: [Amps] HV MOSFETs for RF (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC); What components do they typically use for their final output, high-power devices? Could hams use the same approach? How do they get around the efficiency and cooling problems we've been discussing? 7; /archives//html/Amps/2017-05/msg00072.html (8,204 bytes)
100. Re: [Amps] HV MOSFETs for RF (score: 1): Author: Catherine James <catherine.james@att.net>; Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 17:19:54 +0000 (UTC); It's been very interesting to see that many users have strict linearity requirements. I'm quite surprised that given all that industry experience, we still see ham rigs and amps with poor IMD and tho; /archives//html/Amps/2017-05/msg00096.html (10,053 bytes)

Current List: 81 - 100
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]