Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Network\s+analysis\s+of\s+suppressors\s*$/: 55 ]

Total 55 documents matching your query.

41. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:21:35 -0700
Not a good wager. ? Not according to N7WS' measurements. Nichrome has over 50x the resistance of copper. Add R and ''actually have higher Q''? Behold, the world according to Tom. ? People have repla
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00203.html (10,672 bytes)

42. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: G3SEK@ifwtech.demon.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:58:15 +0000
N7WS made a direct comparison between two nichrome/resistor suppressors supplied by Rich, and a conventional copper-coil/resistor supplied by Tom. He used a vector impedance meter to measure equivale
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00236.html (10,890 bytes)

43. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: Wlfuqu00@pop.uky.edu (William Fuqua)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:58:22 -0500
It seem that most of us have forgotten that resistors have another limit other than max. power dissipation. That is a maximum voltage rating . It seem to me if that rating is seriously exceeded there
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00245.html (9,506 bytes)

44. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:08:21 -0500
That's right Ian. The primary advantage of nichrome in a suppressor is it lowers the HF Q more than it lowers the VHF Q. On amplifiers with HF parasitics, that's a good thing. On amplifiers with VHF
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00249.html (10,286 bytes)

45. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:46:38 -0000
I thought the primary advantage was that you could have it get hotter without the reliability problems of a carbon or MOF resistor! Of course, if you can guarantee that the layout and lead lengths en
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00254.html (10,255 bytes)

46. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:42:43 -0700
The lower-L resistive path is essential for stagger-tuning. On a computer app that does stability analysis, 8877s are apparently capable of regeneration above approx. 100MHz. We use 6% silver, 94% t
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00260.html (10,608 bytes)

47. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:42:45 -0700
[chortle] Rich did not submit a parasitic suppressor to Wes, N7WS. . Rich sent Wes the needed materials and Wes constructed the parasitic suppressor he used in the tests. Wes' nichrome suppressor ha
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00261.html (10,821 bytes)

48. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: jono@enteract.com (Jon Ogden)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:13:12 -0600
This also flies in the face of understanding how resistors work. A 2 Watt resistor can handle a peak power of many times that of 2 Watts. With the milliseconds of time that Rich is talking about, the
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00303.html (10,360 bytes)

49. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:55:39 -0700
? [chortle] ... -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com Search
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00314.html (9,123 bytes)

50. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: W4EF@pacbell.net (Michael Tope)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:52:49 -0800
Rich, see my questions below: As it first did to me, Mike. My guess is that a photon strikes an atom, knocking loose a current carrier/electron, thereby causingthe tube to briefly conduct. This cause
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00329.html (10,659 bytes)

51. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:14:45 -0000
Isn't that what you'd expect? Skin effect will lead to Q going up inversely proportional to square root of frequency. 73 Peter G3RZP -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html Submissions:
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00344.html (8,604 bytes)

52. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:40:26 -0700
yes Virtually anything. . Gamma rays and secondary cosmic rays knock electrons loose from atoms that get in the way of their path. cathode to anode. The electrons would have to have enough velocity
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00362.html (11,874 bytes)

53. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 05:40:30 -0700
yes no ideas. Gamma rays and secondary cosmic rays should be able to knock electrons loose from any atom they collide with. cathode to anode They don't. The supply is 3000v. Roughly 25v is dropped a
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00363.html (11,535 bytes)

54. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:08:19 -0500
Hi Mike, It amazes me that a tube specifically designed to detect radiation and filled with gas that optimizes the effect can't produce anywhere even remotely near the amount of current required to f
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00367.html (9,313 bytes)

55. [AMPS] Network analysis of suppressors (score: 1)
Author: 2@vc.net (measures)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:08:12 -0700
pretty much. Unfortunately, Wes made no measurement of the copper L-supp, so a direct comparison of the inductors is not in the cards. At 50MHz, the Q ratio between Ni-Cr alloy and Cu appears to be
/archives//html/Amps/2000-03/msg00383.html (8,487 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu