Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+SB\-220\s*$/: 95 ]

Total 95 documents matching your query.

41. [AMPS] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:37:58 GMT
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> When I bought this house in 1992, I thought I'd be smart and put dimmer switches in the bedroom, kitchen and hamshack. That way, I'd never hit
/archives//html/Amps/1997-06/msg00316.html (8,721 bytes)

42. [AMPS] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: w5ec@digitalexp.com (Hawkins, Bill)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:07:03 -0500
Ten years we remodeled a bathroom with no windows and she just had to have one of those 4 bulb light fixtures. 4 bulbs is too many but it looked funny with only 2 bulbs in it so I put in all 4 bulbs
/archives//html/Amps/1997-06/msg00330.html (9,366 bytes)

43. [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: ka1xo@juno.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 01:08:00 GMT
We're really hashing this one to death! Needless to say, over 35 years of HR I still remember using the '220 with a tube-operated HB 80-10 xcvr, and I worked CW (sans QSK, of course), and SSB with no
/archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00066.html (7,474 bytes)

44. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:27:09 -0800
** Unsubstantiated rumour has it that the president of Amp Supply Co., Mr. Dennis Had was observed by his wife, during a surprise visit, doing some activity with his secretary on his desk at work, w
/archives//html/Amps/2003-11/msg00077.html (9,171 bytes)

45. [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: "kwasny" <kwasny@netzero.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:50:45 -0500
I smoked one of 1mH chokes on my sb-220. Also saw some arcing around the meter area. I am going to replace the chokes with resisters. Have to replace one of the 220pF caps that got smoked up. Does an
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00010.html (6,361 bytes)

46. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:38:43 -0800
On Nov 1, 2004, at 4:50 PM, kwasny wrote: I smoked one of 1mH chokes on my sb-220. Darryl -- This is caused by a parasitic oscillation ar c. 110MHz. Replacing the choke with resistors will not preven
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00011.html (7,968 bytes)

47. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Vic Rosenthal <vic@rakefet.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:27:13 -0800
R.Measures wrote: The high grid-I during a vhf parasite creates a lateral EMF on the hot filament helix. This occasionally bends the filament far enough sideways to short against the grid -- which is
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00012.html (7,751 bytes)

48. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Alek Petkovic <vk6apk@eon.net.au>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:56:49 +0800
Do what Rich says. You won't be sorry. His kits have now tamed many a wild amplifier in the land down under. 73, Alek VK6APK At 09:38 AM 2/11/2004, R.Measures wrote: On Nov 1, 2004, at 4:50 PM, kwasn
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00018.html (9,378 bytes)

49. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: "kwasny" <kwasny@netzero.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:01:32 -0500
Thanks to all that replied. I am being very cautious before applying power to the amp again. I have looked all over the meter area, the band switch area and everything else in that area can cannot f
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00032.html (9,407 bytes)

50. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:56:24 -0800
On Nov 3, 2004, at 8:01 AM, kwasny wrote: On Nov 1, 2004, at 4:50 PM, kwasny wrote: I smoked one of 1mH chokes on my sb-220. Darryl -- This is caused by a parasitic oscillation ar c. 110MHz. Replacin
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00034.html (10,824 bytes)

51. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: "kwasny" <kwasny@netzero.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:32:37 -0500
Richard, How do I go about getting these parasitic mods an instructions from you? I hate to use the smoke test to find where it arced but I will power it up without the first and if that goes well wi
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00036.html (10,532 bytes)

52. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:52:23 -0500
Just a couple of thoughts: Not all SB-220s are prone to parasitics. I suspect that a lot depends on how well they were built in the first place. I have one with Eimac tubes in it that has been uncond
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00037.html (10,573 bytes)

53. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Will Matney <craxd1@ezwv.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:23:46 -0500
To all, A quick question here, and may open up a big can of worms, if there is no such things as parasitics in amplifiers, why do they all come with parasitic suppressors on the anode leads? Now if I
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00038.html (12,898 bytes)

54. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@ic24.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:45:59 +0000
There certainly are parasitics (unwanted vhf oscillation) - especially with tubes with long grid leads - but not every amplifier will have the gain/feedback/load to allow oscillation if suppressors a
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00039.html (8,311 bytes)

55. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:50:53 -0500
Will, that was absolutely NOT what I was saying. Of course, parasitics do happen, and amplifier designers do install parasitic suppression if their design proves to be prone to them, The stock SB-220
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00040.html (14,291 bytes)

56. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: Will Matney <craxd1@ezwv.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:58:51 -0500
Steve, That's the way I always looked at it too. But, and here's a big but, I read a few webpages that says VHF oscillations are a bunch of bologna. These very authors was or still might be high up i
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00041.html (10,700 bytes)

57. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:29:35 -0800
On Nov 3, 2004, at 9:32 AM, kwasny wrote: -- Original Message -- From: "R.Measures" <r@somis.org> To: "kwasny" <kwasny@netzero.net> Cc: <amps@contesting.com> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:38 PM S
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00042.html (11,912 bytes)

58. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:35:24 -0800
On Nov 3, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Pete Smith wrote: Just a couple of thoughts: Not all SB-220s are prone to parasitics. I suspect that a lot depends on how well they were built in the first place. I have o
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00043.html (13,933 bytes)

59. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:12:29 -0800
On Nov 3, 2004, at 10:23 AM, Will Matney wrote: To all, A quick question here, and may open up a big can of worms, if there is no such things as parasitics in amplifiers, why do they all come with pa
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00044.html (10,361 bytes)

60. Re: [Amps] SB-220 (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:15:17 -0800
On Nov 3, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Steve Thompson wrote: On Wednesday 03 November 2004 18:23, Will Matney wrote: To all, A quick question here, and may open up a big can of worms, if there is no such thing
/archives//html/Amps/2004-11/msg00045.html (9,504 bytes)

Current List: 41 - 60
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
This search system is powered by Namazu