Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[\[AMPS\]\s+Tetrode\s+poor\s+IMD\s+performance\s+\]\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[\[AMPS\]\s+Tetrode\s+poor\s+IMD\s+performance\s+\]\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [[AMPS] Tetrode poor IMD performance ] (score: 1): Author: ac5aa@usa.net (Duane Calvin); Date: 15 Aug 2001 22:42:37 CDT; Expanding a bit on what Paul Christensen wrote - going to the review of 3 amps in QST, Sept 1997, and 4 others in July 1992: Alpha 91b GU-74B/4CX800A AB1 3d/5th ord IMD: 45/49 dB Ameritron 800H 3CX80; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00146.html (8,349 bytes)
2. [[AMPS] Tetrode poor IMD performance ] (score: 1): Author: 2@vc.net (2); Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:37:25 -0700; // With typical transceiver IMD in the low -30s range, the typical amplifier adds no noticable distortion. cheers, Duane - R. L. Measures, 805.386.3734,AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures. end -- FAQ on WW; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00148.html (9,280 bytes)
3. [[AMPS] Tetrode poor IMD performance ] (score: 1): Author: Peter.Chadwick@zarlink.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:37:14 +0100; In the professional field, IMD at -36dB rel PEP from a two tone test has been considered adequate for many years for ISB operation, even with multi channel telegraphy on a sideband where the individu; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00149.html (7,216 bytes)
4. [[AMPS] Tetrode poor IMD performance ] (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (Lamb); Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:01:54 -0700; "It seems a bit doubtful that the 4CX1000A has c. 100-times as much 3rd order distortion as a 4CX1500B" The data I mentioned regarding the 4CX1000 and the 4CX1500 comes from: Care and Feeding of Powe; /archives//html/Amps/2001-08/msg00165.html (8,849 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]