Mail Archive Search: <+from:jono@enteract.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:jono@enteract.com: 615 ]

Total 615 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] New Call for me! (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:05:41 -0500; Hi all, I haven't posted to AMPS in quite a while as my "off air" time has been occupied with home remodeling instead of internet stuff. Anyhow, I have a new call. Those of you who have been around k; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00031.html (7,064 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:40:53 -0500; I agree with you on this, Rich. Sure there is a "maximum power handling" capability and that may be specified usually as a CW rating. IMHO, one of the real numbers you need to look for is voltage bre; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00050.html (8,982 bytes)
3. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 22:46:27 -0500; I don't agree with your ending statement. In a coaxial cable the RF does not travel down the center conductor - at least it shouldn't. In reality, a TEM0 (if I remember my mode designations correct); /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00051.html (9,240 bytes)
4. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:45:01 -0500; I did't speak clear enough. The RF current flows on the SURFACE (depending on skin depth) of the center conductor and the inner surface of the shield. When I spoke of "RF energy" I mean an an RF fie; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00056.html (9,724 bytes)
5. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:57:11 -0500; And one last point I forgot to add. Even if you DID have a coax with ideal conductors (lossless) and it used a real world (not lossless) dielectric, you would still have attenuation of the signal do; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00057.html (8,114 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 14:18:36 -0500; output, You are probabably OK. One thing where you need to be careful though with RF voltages is that you need to look at the peak voltage instead of just the RMS voltages. The 194 volts you give is; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00066.html (9,308 bytes)
7. [AMPS] RE: Power handling of Coax (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:09:07 -0500; ? Superconductors exist, Jon No duh, Rich. One of my former customers manufactures super conducting RF filters. But superconductors are not lossless. They only have minimal loss. It is as impossible; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00069.html (7,948 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Power Handling Capability of Coax Cable (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:17:08 -0500; ambient. Phil, Answer this question please. At 1500 Watts, your RMS RF voltage is 273.86 Volts. So why do you say that RG-58 is only good for 350 Watts. Even the crappy stuff you mention is capable; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00070.html (10,046 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Time to eat crow (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:35:41 -0500; OK, I guess I need to go back and take some remedial physics courses. It is time for me to eat some crow. I claimed that even a superconductor has some finite amount of loss. I have been re-educated; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00072.html (6,974 bytes)
10. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:36:30 -0500; Bob, It's a great tube when run in grounded-grid service. You'll need a lot of juice. I run about 5500 volts under load (6KV idle) and get legal limit with less than 100 Watts. It is a tough tube to; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00206.html (8,509 bytes)
11. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:40:27 -0500; Also, Bob, I forgot to mention: Many of the guys run the tube at lower voltages. And many of the old designs floating around have it running at 3 to 4 KV. However, most of those old designs were base; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00207.html (8,348 bytes)
12. [AMPS] 4-1000 is this a good tube? (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:30:47 -0500; Bob, I forgot to mention yet another thing to consider when using a 4-1K. When running at high anode voltages, the output imedance of the tube begins to get rather large. If memory serves me it's on; /archives//html/Amps/2000-05/msg00213.html (9,860 bytes)
13. [AMPS] FAILURE OF PARASITIC RESISTORS IN AL-811X AMPLIFIER (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:19:32 -0600; All standard resistors of the "tubular" type are somewhat "wound." All have inductances. The resistors I sell are thin film nichrome (OK, OK, nichrome IS used as the resistive film element in these; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00019.html (10,136 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:25:55 -0600; I think we can all agree that nichrome will lower the Q of the resonant circuit. It is a resistance. Adding a resistance in the inductive branch of an LR circuit will change the Q. No one is doubting; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00020.html (9,562 bytes)
15. [AMPS] FAILURE OF PARASITIC RESISTORS IN AL-811X AMPLIFIER (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 22:27:54 -0600; It's not necessarily any ringing transient. VCOs (real oscillators) are not started from a transient but basically oscillate due to the thermal noise of the transistors starting things off. Same thin; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00021.html (10,598 bytes)
16. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:55:23 -0600; No Rich. At 28 MHz. Oh that's, right. You've never built a 28 MHz amplifier. I forgot. You have no real world idea of how they got hot and glow like toaster coils! I got probably another 200 watts ou; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00027.html (9,576 bytes)
17. [AMPS] pre-amp (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:55:58 -0600; If you want to BUILD a preamp, Down East Microwave makes several very nice GaAs FET preamps. Yes they are inline, but you can build the switching too. And at a cost of $25 to $30, they are far cheape; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00032.html (7,589 bytes)
18. [AMPS] N-Connectors - Thanks for the Replies (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:59:34 -0600; Oh yeah. Don't need N's on HF at all! You really don't even need them until you get up to at least 144 MHz and even then, you are still fine. 220 MHz and UHF operations are certainly better with N's,; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00033.html (8,884 bytes)
19. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:01:31 -0600; What Tom is saying is suppressors aren't magic cure-alls. If there is something else amiss with the amplifier that causes improper gain and phase margins, it will oscillate. Suppressors help alleviat; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00034.html (9,074 bytes)
20. [AMPS] FAILURE OF PARASITIC RESISTORS IN AL-811X AMPLIFIER (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:34:50 -0600; Tom, you said it all so eloquently! If the amplifier is going to oscillate, it will oscillate. It won't sit there and just do nothing for weeks, months, years, etc. and then suddenly WHAMMO! Too true; /archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00068.html (10,993 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]