Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+2\s+x\s+4\-1000\s+supressor\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+2\s+x\s+4\-1000\s+supressor\.\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:46:21 -0700; = 16.67 ohms. KM1H is using a 68 ohm -50 w globar. Carl, are did u use a SINGLE 68 ohm resistor ?? consisted of 5 x 250 ohm resistor's in parallel [ 2 watt carbons] worked good too. , [ 2- 2.5 turns]; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00135.html (8,601 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:14:06 -0400; ** Yes, a single 50W Carborundum. The Globars were 50 Ohm. ** That was all 20+ years ago before the Internet forums took off plus I didnt use them myself.....my antenna switching system wouldnt take; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00138.html (10,052 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: DAVE WHITE <mausoptik@btinternet.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:40:41 +0000 (GMT); I have no idea if there's supposed to be a specific value of resistor - but 50 ohm carbons was what I had at the time (I bought a boxfull at a hamfest fleamarket!) and they looked a bit weedy - so t; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00147.html (10,445 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:44:40 -0400; The lower the resistance the better the design has to be otherwise the R gets smoked. 50 Ohms seems to be a value that most can get working without bothering to open a book. The lower the R the broad; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00162.html (11,758 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:16:07 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Nonsense. Rich's suppressors have been thoroughly analyzed by some very competent engineers. Whether or not one agrees with his philosophy, he HAS done his homework. I can on; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00172.html (7,919 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:06:20 -0400; They have been analyzed all right by competent engineers and engineering college professors long before you unfortunately migrated to this forum. Measures voodo has been derided by all and used by no; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00177.html (8,794 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:11:41 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Couldn't stand the rules-be-damned CB mentality there. I'm sure Carl knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about. :-) 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00189.html (8,173 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: Roger <sub1@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:24:28 -0400; And here I thought I was the only one who wouldn't use Yahoo. <:-)) 73 Roger (K8RI) _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/m; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00191.html (8,410 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:22:28 -0400; The reality was that even good techs saw thru your ramblings. What you didnt like is that you were told in straight terms what we thought and you were unable to offer any credible rebuts and just con; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00194.html (9,043 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:04:53 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: I think you have me confused with somebody else. Nothing like that ever happened on the other reflector. I'm not sure where your personal animosity toward Rich and myself com; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00195.html (8,683 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:13:31 -0400; Nice but futile attempt at damage control but it doesnt fly. BTW, I like Rich and we have had many interesting private email and telephone chats over 20+ years and I supported him to some degree when; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00196.html (9,864 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:41:17 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Who, me? :-) 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00200.html (8,775 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] 2 x 4-1000 supressor. (score: 1): Author: Rick Stealey <rstealey@hotmail.com>; Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:14:05 +0000; I respect and appreciate the opinions of both of you guys. But if you have each others email addresses how about doing your arguing and mud slinging privately? I also would hate to see either of you; /archives//html/Amps/2010-07/msg00202.html (8,936 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]