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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+figuring\s+tube\s+output\s+impedance\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Partain, Chuck" <Chuck_Partain@maxtor.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:36:24 -0500; I see a lot of formulae(is that plural???) on determining the output impedance of a tube. some say just plain plate volts divided by plate current, some have a 1.8 x formula and so on. I Want to dete; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00623.html (7,541 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "wc6w@juno.com" <wc6w@juno.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:46:12 GMT; Hi Chuck, You can see how Hughes Aircraft used to figure that on the bottom of this link: http://wc6w.50webs.com/wc6wamps/index.html?fr432.html 73 & Good morning, Marv WC6W I see a lot of formulae(is; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00626.html (8,366 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Conrad_G0RUZ" <conrad@g0ruz.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:48:27 -0000; I would NOT run 3.9 kV on a GU84b, that is way too high, I have used the GU78B and I wouldn't run that much HT on a GU78B and it is a considerably better tube. Look at this http://www.nd2x.net/gu84b.; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00628.html (8,891 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:24:23 +0000; A pedantic comment, highlighted in Conrad's reply. The output impedance of the tube isn't of major importance here. It's the load impedance presented to it that matters. The two are not the same. Ste; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00636.html (8,056 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:36:38 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm GUESSING the FCC will be very interested in your amp. Even at a lousy 50% efficiency that is 3900 watts output. Bill, W6WRT ___; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00638.html (7,976 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Partain, Chuck" <Chuck_Partain@maxtor.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:40:54 -0500; yea they're going to love me. and I guess with that line of thinking, I should drive home doing 145 in the 40. ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm GUESSING the FCC; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00640.html (8,256 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Will Matney" <craxd1@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:41:31 -0500; Chuck, I have a link below to a Hams website who uses the factor 1.87 instead of 1.8 which he came up with from experimentation. He said it actually gets you closer to the correct values than using 1; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00641.html (9,409 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Gary Smith" <wa6fgi@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:01:07 -0800; Where ever you are they will hear you (clearly) from there. ;<) 73, Gary...wa6fgi _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mai; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00642.html (9,522 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Conrad_G0RUZ" <conrad@g0ruz.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:41:42 -0000; Hi Chuck wow that's a lot different from the datasheets that I have seen. Of course my experience is at VHF with the GU78B. I wonder what the 'true' data is? I have always believed the data on the ND; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00644.html (12,297 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "peter.voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:13:28 +0100; The output impedance will be around 1100 ohms in class AB1. I considered a DC anode voltage swing of 3,5KV and conduction angle of 180° 73 Peter I see a lot of formulae(is that plural???) on dete; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00647.html (8,973 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Larry Carman" <lncarman@swbell.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:44:42 -0600; With 3900 watts you can fry tasty chicken in the dummy load if you use vegetable oil. Think the FCC would fall for that one??? ... I actually had a dummy load filled with vegetable oil. Worked ok but; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00648.html (9,500 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Partain, Chuck" <Chuck_Partain@maxtor.com>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:20:18 -0500; I'm looking at the drive not being ON FULL and low watts in, hey it'll coast at 1500 if I do all this right which is what I was shooting for in the first place, that alpha key down advertisement long; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00650.html (10,872 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: "Steven Cook" <sccook1@cox.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:18:36 -0700; Anyone interested in a Rotron Centramax blower -- 5 available. Big bucks... http://cgi.ebay.com/ROTRON-CENTRIMAX-BLOWERS-CX33A33C-CX33A3G_W0QQitemZ7589488660QQcategoryZ92078QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayp; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00651.html (8,664 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] figuring tube output impedance (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:22:32 -0800; ORIGINAL MESSAGE: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've always felt the best dummy load was an antenna, used judiciously of course. Ten meters at midnight works, or 160 meters at noo; /archives//html/Amps/2006-02/msg00659.html (8,721 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]