Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RL\s+Calculations\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+RL\s+Calculations\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: Bruce Osterberg <n9bx@mchsi.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:14:14 -0500; Good Morning: In an Effort to calculate the RL of my two Tube 3cx1500A7, (8877 Amp) Usually the formula is Voltage on the Plate, (Ep), divided by 1.8 x Ip. My question is for this calculation do you; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00367.html (6,469 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:55:38 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Use the key down value, since that is what is actually generating the RF. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00370.html (7,081 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:25:56 -0500; That is the correct academic answer, Bill, but in the real world, if he sets up the tank for 1200-1300 ohms, the difference cannot be measured. (((73))) Phil, K5PC __________________________________; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00371.html (7,458 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:35:33 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: Agreed. The formula implies a greater precision than is actually achieved, since the factor of 1.8 is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. 73, Bill W6WRT _______________________; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00373.html (7,544 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Bob Maser" <bmaser@tampabay.rr.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:34:42 -0400; Plus, if the Q strays a little from the current favored 12, who cares. _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listin; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00374.html (8,362 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Phil Clements" <philc@texascellnet.com>; Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:35:41 -0500; I am so glad that when I built my 3X3 single-band (160 meter) amp I used a 20 uh tank coil as L1 in a pi-l configuration. This came out to be a Q of 6. For over 15 years, I take a few hours in Octobe; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00375.html (8,119 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blaine <keepwalking188@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:37:33 +0800; Phil, You hit on a key point here with the Q. I also beleive the high-Q issue is possibly overrated. I realize the theoritical benefit to the higher Q. But the losses associated with high circulating; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00376.html (9,867 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Bill, W6WRT" <dezrat1242@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:46:48 -0700; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: REPLY: It can make a difference. As you go above the magic 12, circulating current increases and as you go below, harmonic suppression decreases. Neither one is a show stopper as lo; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00377.html (8,174 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] RL Calculations (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:17:47 -0400; Some years ago I compared the output of a NCL-2000 with a Q of 8 with a LK-780 and a Q of 12. Both were straight pi networks. Using a ICE LPF I couldnt tell any difference in harmonic content on a HP; /archives//html/Amps/2009-04/msg00378.html (9,418 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]