Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+article\s+in\s+Nature\,\s+modified\s+Aurora\s+via\s+HF\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:19:37 -0400
I think the real issue is being missed there. The real test of non-linearity is the production of harmonic and intermodulation distortion. This means allows measurements of nonlinearity as small as a
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00362.html (10,886 bytes)

2. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:59:24 -0400
But the issue is one of gain "expansion" not of compression. Does expansion produce the same kind of distortion that compression does? 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Am
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00363.html (12,046 bytes)

3. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: G3rzp@aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:56:53 EDT
The real test of non-linearity is the production of harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Exactly! The Luxembourg effect!!! (although that is actually cross modulation) 73 Peter G3RZP ____________
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00369.html (6,705 bytes)

4. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:09:17 -0700
Probably, but my guess is that the rate of change is so slow, and the increase in signal is so low that the increase in IM distortion is not noticeable. Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.s
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00371.html (12,552 bytes)

5. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: R.Measures <r@somis.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:16:17 -0700
Would CW telegraphy signals be unreadable or simply vanish? That's what I thought until I sold the Plywood Box amplifier and made some on-the-air measurements with a step-attenuator. ________________
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00374.html (9,794 bytes)

6. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:13:42 -0400
Lots and lots of QRM 73 Bill wa4lav _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00376.html (9,804 bytes)

7. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: Ian White G3SEK <G3SEK@ifwtech.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:24:08 +0100
But how many reports of the "Luxembourg effect" over the decades have been due to cross-modulation in receivers? We skeptics need to know. -- 73 from Ian G3SEK _______________________________________
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00385.html (7,369 bytes)

8. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: G3rzp@aol.com
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:56:37 EDT
But how many reports of the "Luxembourg effect" over the decades have been due to cross-modulation in receivers? We skeptics need to know. The Luxembourg Effect was first noted in the 1930s when Radi
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00389.html (7,960 bytes)

9. Re: [Amps] article in Nature, modified Aurora via HF (score: 1)
Author: "MICHAEL FORD" <moo@midmaine.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:48:19 -0400
A similar effect was used on a daily basis at the Lohnsfeld Germany receiver site. The transmitter was at Ft. Detrick MD and they would come up along side a strong European broadcast station for the
/archives//html/Amps/2005-04/msg00392.html (7,631 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu