Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Conjugate\s+matching\s+and\s+amplifiers\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Conjugate\s+matching\s+and\s+amplifiers\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 1 Oct 99 09:22:13 -0500; Nope, not picking on me! It's a good discussion! First of all, I do agree with your statement. In reality your right, we match the tube for our desired power output. But is "desired" power output rea; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00010.html (11,138 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: measures@vcnet.com (measures); Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:59:19 -0700; only ? Who tunes for max efficiency? a produce the (usually). ? it's gotta be a typo. ...... ? Undoubtedly unsliced bologna. You outta know better, Jon. The tube is typically biased linearly for ove; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00014.html (11,255 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 1 Oct 99 10:40:36 -0500; You really can't tune for max efficiency. The efficiency part of the equation is taken into account in the design of the amplifier, particularly the tank circuit. You really can't "tune" for efficien; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00016.html (13,001 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: measures@vcnet.com (measures); Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:38:36 -0700; ? Sure you can. It takes a ton of calculation and a sheet of graph paper. ? inexpensive sausage ? . The tank fills in the missing half provided that enough Q is provided by the designer. Did I catch; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00024.html (13,811 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Fri, 1 Oct 99 14:49:58 -0500; Which is the same as the best match. That is correct within the design of the network you have at hand. But it has nothing to do with whether or not you could have a better tank circuit. End of story; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00026.html (8,285 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 00:18:20 +0100; Not necessarily either of the above. For example we often load more heavily than the position for maximum power output/efficiency in order to improve the IMD performance. And there isn't even a singl; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00042.html (8,683 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden); Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:03:25 -0500; That is true, Ian. Good point. Right you are again. 73, Jon KE9NA ps: How's Peter? -- Jon Ogden KE9NA http://www.qsl.net/ke9na <-- CHECK IT OUT! It's been updated!!!!! "A life lived in fear is a life; /archives//html/Amps/1999-10/msg00080.html (8,608 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Conjugate matching and amplifiers (score: 1): Author: n1rj@pivot.net (Roger D. Johnson); Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:51:17 -0400; Poor Jon is going to think I'm picking on him but I must disagree on his statements about conjugate matching of amplifiers. In reality the PA tube is only matched to the extent that it produces the d; /archives//html/Amps/1999-09/msg00005.html (8,824 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]