Mail Archive Search: <+from:mgilmer@gnlp.com>

Results:

References: [ +from:mgilmer@gnlp.com: 89 ]

Total 89 documents matching your query.

21. [AMPS] SWR and line length, etc. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:50:54 -0400; On Monday, October 04, 1999 12:25 PM, Jon Ogden [SMTP:jono@enteract.com] wrote: you zero 50 Ohm reactive. 25 What I was trying to describe, and I believe Pete understood it be, was the case of having; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00110.html (11,205 bytes)
22. [AMPS] Re: The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 13:55:36 -0400; the Since 93-ohm but the Yes. From what everyone's told me, this is 1.86:1 (93/50) regardless of the line length. The Z looking into the cable is 50 ohms, but there's standing waves on it from the lo; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00114.html (10,113 bytes)
23. [AMPS] The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:18:29 -0400; On Tuesday, October 05, 1999 1:53 AM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: of the reads Rich, this says that as long as I have a multiple-half-wave of cable, the impedance of the cable plays no; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00119.html (9,822 bytes)
24. [AMPS] Re: The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:22:48 -0400; On Tuesday, October 05, 1999 2:18 AM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: line, the Since 93-ohm ohms but the entirely of Still 1:1? It never was. Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00120.html (9,546 bytes)
25. [AMPS] Re: The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:39:05 -0400; On Monday, October 04, 1999 2:56 PM, Jon Ogden [SMTP:jono@enteract.com] wrote: line, the Since 93-ohm ohms but entirely to measure a 50 Ohm load in a system where 50 Ohms is our base (the SWR meter h; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00125.html (11,476 bytes)
26. [AMPS] Re: The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:17:45 -0400; On Tuesday, October 05, 1999 4:09 AM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: line, the ohms entirely of on the I think only you say they do. I didn't. 73 Mike -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00132.html (10,866 bytes)
27. [AMPS] The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:20:33 -0400; On Tuesday, October 05, 1999 4:09 AM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] to box of the end. reads created It doesn't eliminate the standing waves along the cable. The; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00133.html (10,839 bytes)
28. [AMPS] The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:47:17 -0400; On Monday, October 04, 1999 4:23 PM, Jon Ogden [SMTP:jono@enteract.com] wrote: reads transmission line is a length where even you agree that the transformed impedance at the end of it is 50 Ohms. So; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00139.html (10,319 bytes)
29. [AMPS] Enough of The Worldwide, No Holds Barred, SWR Quiz. (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:25:21 -0400; Gee, I thought we were not only having a scientific discussion, but a fairly civil one at that. Work to do today :) Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@c; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00186.html (7,811 bytes)
30. [AMPS] SWR WARS - The Impedance Strikes Back (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 15:24:51 -0400; I still am not sure if I've learned anything. Maybe I have. Jon's somewhat rhetorical question about how come a quarter-wave transformer works brought back why I initially entered into this discussio; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00202.html (10,589 bytes)
31. [AMPS] Hold on - SWR meter placement (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 11:19:22 -0400; on max perfect"? Any SWR that doesn't behave as Rich would like ;o) 73 Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps-R; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00297.html (9,457 bytes)
32. [AMPS] Hold on - SWR meter placement (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 16:52:48 -0400; On Friday, October 08, 1999 4:36 PM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: The SWR Are we sliding a SWR meter or a voltmeter along the slotted line? Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00314.html (9,429 bytes)
33. [AMPS] Quiet? (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:10:26 -0400; On Sunday, October 10, 1999 1:49 PM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: Maybe it was the realization that some were discussing the true SWR (science, math and perhaps the Holy Grail) and other; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00361.html (7,326 bytes)
34. [AMPS] More Relevant SWR FINAL EXAM (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:10:15 -0400; How big would one be at 14 MHz? (!) Mike N2MG On Monday, October 11, 1999 1:07 PM, measures [SMTP:measures@vcnet.com] wrote: at 50 -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: a; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00372.html (8,888 bytes)
35. [AMPS] More Relevant SWR FINAL EXAM (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:37:49 -0400; Yes Mauri. Some of us are showing our HF biases :) Mike N2MG used on on match at a 50 -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: a; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00376.html (9,528 bytes)
36. [AMPS] Dead Horse (not yet) (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:47:36 -0400; ago, transmission Guy two responds: One guy talks about the VSWR being the same along the slotted line. The other guy, in apparent disagreement, says the VOLTAGE varies with position. And there's a P; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00401.html (7,528 bytes)
37. [AMPS] Dead Horse (not yet) (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:35:40 -0400; Not sure I understand, Jon. If we're looking at a standing wave, by definition the voltage at a specific point on the line never changes. We slide the detector probe along the line until we find a pe; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00406.html (7,574 bytes)
38. [AMPS] Dead Horse (not yet) (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:16:11 -0400; Yup, more misinformation. Should be 1/4-wave from the peak to the minimum (1/2-wave between peaks). Mea culpa. Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contes; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00409.html (7,243 bytes)
39. [AMPS] amplifier problems (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:28:44 -0400; replace it 13w. Your point? That's not what he asked. A 20W, if it fits physically, will be OK. True enough, but since a 10W "should probably" maybe it "might not". 73 Mike N2MG -- FAQ on WWW: http:/; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00427.html (8,693 bytes)
40. [AMPS] amplifier problems (score: 1): Author: mgilmer@gnlp.com (Gilmer, Mike); Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:36:46 -0400; down replace to13w. coated application. It sure gets crowded on a head of a pin. He has a 20W unit, apparently in hand. Why would you feel it necessary to tell him a 10W would work and not answer his; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00429.html (10,138 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]