Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #451909 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-14 20:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-03-24 21:35 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 301 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-14 20:18 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-14 22:21 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 23:43 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-15 12:27 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:19 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-15 18:51 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 20:08 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 00:24 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 22:17 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 02:48 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? makolber@yahoo.com - 2017-03-15 06:35 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-15 12:46 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2017-03-30 01:42 +0100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 18:20 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-16 08:44 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 00:17 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-17 00:58 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-15 13:01 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:39 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:33 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Dave M" <dgminala@mediacombb.net> - 2017-03-15 09:40 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:26 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-15 08:25 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-03-15 12:38 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-15 17:59 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 18:10 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-16 08:20 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-16 10:26 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 15:47 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-16 17:15 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 17:36 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-16 18:46 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 23:45 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 07:30 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-17 08:28 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-17 11:38 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 12:21 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-17 13:08 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-18 10:32 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 17:10 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 22:31 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 14:53 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 20:38 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-18 18:10 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 18:39 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-19 09:53 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 12:27 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-18 22:11 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 10:41 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-17 17:13 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 17:28 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-18 12:21 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-18 12:15 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-17 17:36 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-17 18:09 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-17 18:21 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-18 10:49 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 08:30 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? mkolber1@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-18 12:57 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-18 23:48 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-18 20:08 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-03-18 13:09 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-18 04:08 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 12:32 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 10:45 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 11:08 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-19 22:31 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-20 16:31 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-21 01:19 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-22 19:15 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-18 10:41 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 14:47 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-19 00:22 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 12:39 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 19:11 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-19 13:15 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 04:26 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-21 13:17 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-21 01:32 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-21 10:38 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-21 02:53 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 01:01 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:33 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-21 09:42 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-21 19:05 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-21 12:49 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-21 18:39 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-21 22:39 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:30 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-19 17:43 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-21 14:39 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-21 09:46 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-17 17:31 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 17:46 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-17 18:18 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-21 09:55 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 07:27 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? DemonicTubes <tlackie@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 09:11 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-17 11:40 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-17 12:29 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-17 12:25 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-18 16:20 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 15:41 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-16 16:14 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:25 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-19 11:22 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-15 21:20 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-15 23:02 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 02:48 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 00:10 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-16 08:21 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:10 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Bill Beaty <billb@eskimo.com> - 2017-03-16 12:12 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-16 13:06 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-16 15:39 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-16 19:57 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-18 21:26 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-17 09:44 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-17 17:35 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-17 18:35 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 09:01 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-19 08:20 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-19 15:31 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 19:42 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-19 19:20 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 17:49 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-19 20:19 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-03-19 19:44 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 00:00 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 23:56 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 08:36 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 12:54 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 13:16 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 12:31 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 17:17 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 18:25 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 17:15 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 18:25 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 17:56 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-20 18:49 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-21 00:19 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-21 07:27 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-21 07:28 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-21 11:24 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 13:39 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-23 13:52 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-23 16:48 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-23 23:58 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 01:13 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 07:00 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 12:47 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 15:13 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:05 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 08:44 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 09:13 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-24 09:40 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 13:08 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-24 13:42 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-24 14:20 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-24 22:46 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-24 22:13 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 09:29 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-25 11:33 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 15:20 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-25 15:25 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 19:17 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-25 17:02 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 21:25 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 20:10 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 21:32 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 22:42 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 00:00 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-26 04:00 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 05:36 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-26 09:34 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-26 10:23 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 13:10 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-27 09:32 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 14:44 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 16:34 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 16:12 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:44 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 17:08 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-25 16:00 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 18:27 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 19:31 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-25 21:21 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 23:42 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-25 17:34 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 17:21 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 18:27 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 17:54 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 20:55 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 20:09 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 21:28 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 21:23 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 23:25 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-21 07:54 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-21 07:57 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-21 11:54 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-21 12:21 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-21 21:40 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 13:27 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-03-20 15:41 -0800
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-20 19:13 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 21:18 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-03-21 04:35 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-20 11:06 +0200
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-24 10:14 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:59 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:49 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-26 07:35 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 13:15 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-27 07:46 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:59 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-27 09:22 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 23:47 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 18:15 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 03:42 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 19:07 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 04:35 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 21:58 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-28 09:42 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-28 12:51 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-28 07:23 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 13:28 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-30 00:37 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 21:02 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-28 09:57 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-28 09:05 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-28 11:27 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 13:29 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-27 14:57 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-27 07:25 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-03-27 09:47 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-27 19:51 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-27 12:21 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 18:54 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 10:16 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-27 16:58 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 23:33 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 18:18 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 03:48 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-28 07:28 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-28 13:41 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-28 07:44 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-27 21:18 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-28 18:22 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 04:01 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-28 11:04 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-28 10:58 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-28 11:13 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 13:47 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-29 14:18 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-30 00:47 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-29 19:15 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 21:40 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 14:26 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 23:47 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 10:18 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-03-29 19:12 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 11:49 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-29 18:21 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 14:19 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-29 18:01 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> - 2017-03-30 02:35 +0000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-29 14:23 +1100
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 23:46 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-03-30 21:40 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-31 20:08 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-02 12:59 +1000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 23:55 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-02 14:36 +1000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:56 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-02 18:11 +1000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-04-02 07:35 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? mkolber1@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 06:16 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-03 07:40 +1000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-04-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-04-03 08:47 +1000
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-04-02 18:39 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-04-02 21:22 -0500
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-04-03 14:12 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 23:25 -0400
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-03-28 12:58 +0300
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-27 07:52 -0700
Re: Antenna ferrite loopsticks verses air core? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-03-24 21:35 +0200
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 18:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58da0f33$0$1373$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #453943 |
On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: > On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>> >>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >> >> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? > > You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >> More voltage does not create better audio. > > But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to > waste any signal in loss resistances. You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* the detector. Sorry to puncture your dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 04:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obd538$iv2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453963 |
On 3/28/2017 3:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>> >>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>> >>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >> >> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. > > Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. > >>> More voltage does not create better audio. >> >> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >> waste any signal in loss resistances. > > You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the > Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. > > You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil > diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more > effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. > > With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching > problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* > the detector. > > Sorry to puncture your dogma. You don't have any idea of what he wrote. Read it again and try to understand what he is talking about before you dismiss it so (actually not so) glibly. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 11:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vb2dnQTx-6P85kfFnZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #453968 |
On 03/28/2017 04:01 AM, rickman wrote: > On 3/28/2017 3:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>> >>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>> >>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>> >>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >> >> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >> >>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>> >>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >> >> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >> >> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >> >> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >> the detector. >> >> Sorry to puncture your dogma. > > You don't have any idea of what he wrote. Read it again and try to > understand what he is talking about before you dismiss it so (actually > not so) glibly. > It's funny to see so much emotion over somebody else's hobby circuit. Building the ultimate crystal set is like making an oscillator that will run on a 5-mV supply. It's not good for much, but it can be a lot of fun if you have time on your hands and nothing to prove. I can see the fun of trying to make the highest-Q coil you can, just as I can see the beauty of shiny silver-plated air variable caps. Think stamp collecting, not designing for 1e6 units. Cheers Phil Hobbs (Who once built a completely impractical capacitive gauge that was linear to 0.2% right down to where the plates touched. Nice polished brass things they were, too.) -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obe123$gst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453991 |
On 3/28/2017 10:04 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 04:01 AM, rickman wrote:
>> On 3/28/2017 3:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal-
>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is
>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet.
>>>
>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971.
>>>
>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio.
>>>>
>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to
>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances.
>>>
>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the
>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time.
>>>
>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil
>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more
>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q.
>>>
>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching
>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after*
>>> the detector.
>>>
>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma.
>>
>> You don't have any idea of what he wrote. Read it again and try to
>> understand what he is talking about before you dismiss it so (actually
>> not so) glibly.
>>
>
> It's funny to see so much emotion over somebody else's hobby circuit.
> Building the ultimate crystal set is like making an oscillator that will
> run on a 5-mV supply. It's not good for much, but it can be a lot of
> fun if you have time on your hands and nothing to prove.
>
> I can see the fun of trying to make the highest-Q coil you can, just as
> I can see the beauty of shiny silver-plated air variable caps.
The highest Q's I've seen are just over 2000, using 2 parallel 660/46
litz wires solenoid wound. The site that it was on is defunct and the
Wayback machine server for the link seems to be down.
However, I did find the link to a Ferrite coil with a Q over 2000.
> http://theradioboard.com/rb/viewtopic.php?t=7058
And, isn't it great that we have evolved to a point that food, water
and shelter are not concerns, and we can play at anything we want!
Mikek
>
> Think stamp collecting, not designing for 1e6 units.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> (Who once built a completely impractical capacitive gauge that was
> linear to 0.2% right down to where the plates touched. Nice polished
> brass things they were, too.)
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16a1b22e-6442-4f94-b63d-8e5a77fe28d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453991 |
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:04:10 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> It's funny to see so much emotion over somebody else's hobby circuit.
> Building the ultimate crystal set is like making an oscillator that will
> run on a 5-mV supply.
Certainly! For example,
+0.35v @ 150pA
-+-
|
+-------+---------+------.
| | | |
2.2G 22G 22G 2.2G
| | | |
| 10pF | | 10pF|
+---||--+--. .--+--||--+------+---> 3.2Hz
| \ / | |
| / | 10pF Cload
\| / \ |/ |
Q1 |--------' '-------| Q2 ===
.<| |>. GND
| |
=== Q1-2 = 2n5089 ===
GND GND
A very silly oscillator
Dissipation: 55pW
> It's not good for much, but it can be a lot of
> fun if you have time on your hands and nothing to prove.
Au contraire! This basic astable forms the foundation for a 3.2Hz
micro^H^H^H^Hacrocontroller, with applications for personal space
travel, over-unity energy devices, and reversing global warming. :-)
> I can see the fun of trying to make the highest-Q coil you can, just as
> I can see the beauty of shiny silver-plated air variable caps.
>
> Think stamp collecting, not designing for 1e6 units.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> (Who once built a completely impractical capacitive gauge that was
> linear to 0.2% right down to where the plates touched. Nice polished
> brass things they were, too.)
Cheers,
James Arthur
(Who once designed a modestly hi-Z amplifier for some crystal radio
buffs. :-)
(A work still in progress.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obdubg$7fc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453963 |
On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote:
>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal-
>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is
>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here.
>>>>
>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts?
>>>
>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500?
>>
>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet.
>
> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971.
>
>>> More voltage does not create better audio.
>>
>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to
>> waste any signal in loss resistances.
>
> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the
> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time.
>
> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil
> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more
> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q.
Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air,
a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the
RF signal.
If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread.
> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching
> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after*
> the detector.
>
> Sorry to puncture your dogma.
Take a breath!
I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of
1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the
Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched
impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match,
you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal
The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is
before the matching audio transformer.
Mikek
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 13:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obgrpi$1k5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453993 |
On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote: > On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>> >>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>> >>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>> >>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >> >> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. > >> >>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>> >>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >> >> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >> >> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. > > Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, > a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the > RF signal. > If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. > > >> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >> the detector. >> >> Sorry to puncture your dogma. > > Take a breath! > I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of > 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the > Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched > impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match, > you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal > The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is > before the matching audio transformer. Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector diode. I we pretty impressed. Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a *much* improved radio! -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obh15b$mab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454133 |
On 3/29/2017 12:47 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote:
>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal-
>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is
>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet.
>>>
>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971.
>>
>>>
>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio.
>>>>
>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to
>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances.
>>>
>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the
>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time.
>>>
>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil
>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more
>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q.
>>
>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air,
>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the
>> RF signal.
>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread.
>>
>>
>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching
>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after*
>>> the detector.
>>>
>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma.
>>
>> Take a breath!
>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of
>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the
>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched
>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match,
>> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal
>> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is
>> before the matching audio transformer.
>
> Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web
> site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector
> diode. I we pretty impressed.
>
> Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in
> the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a
> *much* improved radio!
>
Probably Ben Tongue's site, he has multiple writings about diodes,
The diode you pick is very dependent on the signal strength.
> http://www.bentongue.com/xtalset/xtalset.html
Mikek
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | upsidedown@downunder.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 00:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <ffaodcpd60el271scm2rjd6flf9ims9eok@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454133 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:15 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote: >> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>>> >>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>>> >>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >>> >>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >> >>> >>>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>>> >>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >>> >>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >>> >>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >> >> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, >> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the >> RF signal. >> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. >> >> >>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >>> the detector. >>> >>> Sorry to puncture your dogma. >> >> Take a breath! >> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of >> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the >> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched >> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match, >> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal >> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is >> before the matching audio transformer. > >Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web >site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector >diode. I we pretty impressed. > >Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in >the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a >*much* improved radio! Why do you want to keep the receiver completely passive ? A small solar cell o the headphone will charge a small battery, that can be used to drive a small RF/IF/AF amplifier over the night. How about a two circuit MF AM receiver, with one resonant circuit tuned to your local strong MF (AM) station and the rectified DC power is used to run the "DX" receiver ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 19:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obhiha$fd7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454150 |
On 3/29/2017 4:47 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:15 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal-
>>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is
>>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500?
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to
>>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances.
>>>>
>>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the
>>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil
>>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more
>>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q.
>>>
>>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air,
>>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the
>>> RF signal.
>>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching
>>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after*
>>>> the detector.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma.
>>>
>>> Take a breath!
>>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of
>>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the
>>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched
>>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match,
>>> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal
>>> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is
>>> before the matching audio transformer.
>>
>> Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web
>> site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector
>> diode. I we pretty impressed.
>>
>> Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in
>> the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a
>> *much* improved radio!
>
>
> Why do you want to keep the receiver completely passive ?
>
> A small solar cell o the headphone will charge a small battery, that
> can be used to drive a small RF/IF/AF amplifier over the night.
>
> How about a two circuit MF AM receiver, with one resonant circuit
> tuned to your local strong MF (AM) station and the rectified DC power
> is used to run the "DX" receiver ?
>
>
People have built them as you have suggested.
Mikek
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 21:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obhng7$q6s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454150 |
On 3/29/2017 5:47 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:15 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>>>> >>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>>>> >>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >>>> >>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >>> >>>> >>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>>>> >>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >>>> >>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >>>> >>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >>> >>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, >>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the >>> RF signal. >>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. >>> >>> >>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >>>> the detector. >>>> >>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma. >>> >>> Take a breath! >>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of >>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the >>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched >>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match, >>> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal >>> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is >>> before the matching audio transformer. >> >> Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web >> site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector >> diode. I we pretty impressed. >> >> Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in >> the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a >> *much* improved radio! > > > Why do you want to keep the receiver completely passive ? > > A small solar cell o the headphone will charge a small battery, that > can be used to drive a small RF/IF/AF amplifier over the night. > > How about a two circuit MF AM receiver, with one resonant circuit > tuned to your local strong MF (AM) station and the rectified DC power > is used to run the "DX" receiver ? Why do you care what I do? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 14:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58dc7667$0$15579$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #454173 |
On 30/03/17 12:40, rickman wrote: > On 3/29/2017 5:47 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:15 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>>>>> >>>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >>>>> >>>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >>>>> >>>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >>>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >>>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >>>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >>>> >>>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, >>>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the >>>> RF signal. >>>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. >>>> >>>> >>>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >>>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >>>>> the detector. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma. >>>> >>>> Take a breath! >>>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of >>>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the >>>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched >>>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match, >>>> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal >>>> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is >>>> before the matching audio transformer. >>> >>> Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web >>> site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the detector >>> diode. I we pretty impressed. >>> >>> Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few dB in >>> the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a >>> *much* improved radio! >> >> >> Why do you want to keep the receiver completely passive ? >> >> A small solar cell o the headphone will charge a small battery, that >> can be used to drive a small RF/IF/AF amplifier over the night. >> >> How about a two circuit MF AM receiver, with one resonant circuit >> tuned to your local strong MF (AM) station and the rectified DC power >> is used to run the "DX" receiver ? > > Why do you care what I do? Because we don't have any convenient audiophools to ridicule, but we can enjoy ridiculing radiophools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 23:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obhuvm$4ul$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454185 |
On 3/28/2017 11:26 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: > On 30/03/17 12:40, rickman wrote: >> On 3/29/2017 5:47 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:47:15 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the >>>>>>>>>> crystal- >>>>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>>>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >>>>>> >>>>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >>>>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >>>>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >>>>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >>>>> >>>>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, >>>>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup >>>>> the >>>>> RF signal. >>>>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >>>>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >>>>>> the detector. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma. >>>>> >>>>> Take a breath! >>>>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of >>>>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the >>>>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched >>>>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. But before you do that match, >>>>> you need to insert a diode to demodulate the signal >>>>> The diode adds a series resistance into the circuit, that is >>>>> before the matching audio transformer. >>>> >>>> Somewhere in the process of being in this discussion I cam across a web >>>> site (perhaps Kleijer's) that deeply analyzed the losses in the >>>> detector >>>> diode. I we pretty impressed. >>>> >>>> Save a few dB in the coil, a few dB in the tuning capacitor, a few >>>> dB in >>>> the diode and use a very sensitive pair of headphones and you have a >>>> *much* improved radio! >>> >>> >>> Why do you want to keep the receiver completely passive ? >>> >>> A small solar cell o the headphone will charge a small battery, that >>> can be used to drive a small RF/IF/AF amplifier over the night. >>> >>> How about a two circuit MF AM receiver, with one resonant circuit >>> tuned to your local strong MF (AM) station and the rectified DC power >>> is used to run the "DX" receiver ? >> >> Why do you care what I do? > > Because we don't have any convenient audiophools to ridicule, > but we can enjoy ridiculing radiophools. You are doing nothing but making a fool of yourself. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 10:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58dc3c63$0$57932$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #453993 |
On 29/03/17 02:12, amdx wrote: > On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>> >>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>> >>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>> >>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >> >> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. > >> >>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>> >>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >> >> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >> >> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. > > Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, > a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the > RF signal. > If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. > > >> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >> the detector. >> >> Sorry to puncture your dogma. > > Take a breath! > I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of > 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the > Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched > impedance lowers the Q to 500. You're making slightly more sense than Rickman, who hasn't responded to *any* of the numbers I suggested, but one thing still puzzles me. Why worry about increasing Q above 500, when you can get more than the extra 0.2% (lost energy at Q=500) by adding 3 inches more antenna wire?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 19:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obhibt$fd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454152 |
On 3/28/2017 6:18 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 29/03/17 02:12, amdx wrote:
>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal-
>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is
>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts?
>>>>>
>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500?
>>>>
>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet.
>>>
>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971.
>>
>>>
>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio.
>>>>
>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to
>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances.
>>>
>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the
>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time.
>>>
>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil
>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more
>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q.
>>
>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air,
>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the
>> RF signal.
>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread.
>>
>>
>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching
>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after*
>>> the detector.
>>>
>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma.
>>
>> Take a breath!
>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of
>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the
>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched
>> impedance lowers the Q to 500.
>
> You're making slightly more sense than Rickman, who hasn't
> responded to *any* of the numbers I suggested, but one thing
> still puzzles me.
>
> Why worry about increasing Q above 500, when you can get more
> than the extra 0.2% (lost energy at Q=500) by adding 3 inches
> more antenna wire?
I don't know the math but logically I don't see that adding 3 inches
to a 50ft antenna is going to have the same effect as doubling Q.
Here's a video, this guy built a very nice set, it's worth watching.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw4IiTR3Tqw
Mikek
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 11:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58dc51c0$0$53039$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #454156 |
On 30/03/17 11:12, amdx wrote: > On 3/28/2017 6:18 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> On 29/03/17 02:12, amdx wrote: >>> On 3/28/2017 2:22 AM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 28/03/17 13:18, amdx wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>> On 27/03/17 23:25, amdx wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/2017 6:57 AM, Tauno Voipio wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg, you seem not understand the innermost sense of the crystal- >>>>>>>> radio people. They are closely related to audiophools, and it is >>>>>>>> quite impossible to use sensible technical argumentation here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't get that at all, can you back that up with any facts? >>>>>> >>>>>> ~1MHz, Q=500, bandwidth ~ 2KHz. Remind me why you need Q>1500? >>>>> >>>>> You haven't connected an antenna, and tried to drive a headset yet. >>>> >>>> Umm, I think that was me in about 1971. >>> >>>> >>>>>> More voltage does not create better audio. >>>>> >>>>> But if it is a very weak signal on the antenna, you don't want to >>>>> waste any signal in loss resistances. >>>> >>>> You start to *reject* some of the received power as soon as the >>>> Q passes 200ish, and you destroy the audio at the same time. >>>> >>>> You can quadruple your received power by doubling your coil >>>> diameter, or fitting a longer wire. That's *far* FAR more >>>> effective than saving 0.2% by using higher Q. >>> >>> Crystal radios do not use the coil to collect RF energy from the air, >>> a long wire antenna of 25ft to 150 is attached tothe coil to pickup the >>> RF signal. >>> If you want to discuss loop antennas, start a new thread. >>> >>> >>>> With a crystal ear-piece, you still may have an impedance matching >>>> problem. For that, you should use an audio transformer *after* >>>> the detector. >>>> >>>> Sorry to puncture your dogma. >>> >>> Take a breath! >>> I'll start simple, Coil and tuning cap have a unloaded Q of >>> 1000. To extract maximum power you use a load that matches the >>> Q times Xl of the coil. Loading the coil with it's matched >>> impedance lowers the Q to 500. >> >> You're making slightly more sense than Rickman, who hasn't >> responded to *any* of the numbers I suggested, but one thing >> still puzzles me. >> >> Why worry about increasing Q above 500, when you can get more >> than the extra 0.2% (lost energy at Q=500) by adding 3 inches >> more antenna wire? > > I don't know the math but logically I don't see that adding 3 inches > to a 50ft antenna is going to have the same effect as doubling Q Doubling the Q doubles the voltage and halves the current, four times the impedance. It creates NO EXTRA POWER, except the tiny 1/Q resistive losses that are eliminated. For a Q of 500 the power loss (hence the maximum possible saving) is only 0.2%. If you have a 40 foot long wire antenna, you can gain 0.2% by lengthening it by ONE INCH. Furthermore, raising Q to 1500 (say) merely restricts the amount of side-band energy you gather in the first place. The amount of loss depends on how much energy exists in the high-audio part of the program material - but the point is that you're discarding that power in the hope of getting *more* power, but all you're doing is destroying your audio fidelity. Ben Tongue understands all this, but it seems that you don't understand him. If you needed a high impedance to match your phones, and if you can tolerate the loss of high frequencies in the audio, you could use a higher Q. But you'd be better to limit the RF so you get the full audio bandwidth, then use an audio transformer to match your phones instead. Does that make my points clearer? Clifford Heath.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79modcd97ft1hhtphu8todfs0obpdaq02b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454160 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:49:43 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote: >Doubling the Q doubles the voltage and halves the current, four >times the impedance. It creates NO EXTRA POWER, except the tiny >1/Q resistive losses that are eliminated. Umm... I beg to differ. Q = Xl / R = Inductive_reactance / Resistance_and_losses Assuming the inductance remains the same, changing the style of the inductor, such as a ferrite core, loop antenna, Litz wire, scramble wound solenoid, or honeycomb basketweave, will not change the inductive reactance. Only the resistive and other losses part dissipates power. Any change in Q will involve the resistive part of the puzzle. For example, switching from magnet wire to Litz wire offers an increase in surface area. Since RF conduction occurs on the wire surface (skin effect), and Litz wire has a larger surface area, the Q will be higher. A receiver design that doesn't over-load the coil, where the losses from the load across the coil is substantially greater than the dissipative losses from the coil resistance and surface area, should be able to benefit from the increase Q by recovering more power. Whether this appears as an increase in voltage or current depends on how the power is "tapped" from the coil. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire> "The ratio of distributed inductance to distributed resistance is increased, relative to a solid conductor, resulting in a higher Q factor at these frequencies." I guess I should mention that Litz wire works well up to about 1MHz. At higher frequencies, the eddy currents in the inside windings form, creating additional losses which negate the benefits of using Litz wire. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 14:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58dc74f5$0$49888$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #454170 |
On 30/03/17 12:21, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:49:43 +1100, Clifford Heath > <no.spam@please.net> wrote: > >> Doubling the Q doubles the voltage and halves the current, four >> times the impedance. It creates NO EXTRA POWER, except the tiny >> 1/Q resistive losses that are eliminated. > > Umm... I beg to differ. > Q = Xl / R = Inductive_reactance / Resistance_and_losses I know that. I said that. It creates NO EXTRA POWER, and only (from starting Q of 500) makes a TINY reduction in the net power after losses - because the losses were so small to start with. Now go back and read what I wrote, before you respond again, because this response wasn't even relevant to what I actually wrote. Clifford Heath. > Assuming the inductance remains the same, changing the style of the > inductor, such as a ferrite core, loop antenna, Litz wire, scramble > wound solenoid, or honeycomb basketweave, will not change the > inductive reactance. Only the resistive and other losses part > dissipates power. Any change in Q will involve the resistive part of > the puzzle. For example, switching from magnet wire to Litz wire > offers an increase in surface area. Since RF conduction occurs on the > wire surface (skin effect), and Litz wire has a larger surface area, > the Q will be higher. A receiver design that doesn't over-load the > coil, where the losses from the load across the coil is substantially > greater than the dissipative losses from the coil resistance and > surface area, should be able to benefit from the increase Q by > recovering more power. Whether this appears as an increase in voltage > or current depends on how the power is "tapped" from the coil. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire> > "The ratio of distributed inductance to distributed resistance > is increased, relative to a solid conductor, resulting in a higher > Q factor at these frequencies." > > I guess I should mention that Litz wire works well up to about 1MHz. > At higher frequencies, the eddy currents in the inside windings form, > creating additional losses which negate the benefits of using Litz > wire. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nblodcp35jsfacn2852ajqejje8aa52g5s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454152 |
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:18:33 +1100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote: >Why worry about increasing Q above 500, when you can get more >than the extra 0.2% (lost energy at Q=500) by adding 3 inches >more antenna wire? Because the added 3 inches will add equal amounts of signal and noise, resulting in no net improvement. It's always fun to drag things to their logical extreme. Instead of 3 inches, add 3 miles of wire. The recovered energy will be huge and possibly sufficient to draw an arc. But, so will the received atmospheric noise be huge by the same amount. Besides less loss, a higher Q also means more selectivity, so the receiver won't act the like the first crystal set I built in middle skool, which received and demodulated most of the AM broadcast band simultaneously. There's an upper limit to Q as set by the modulation bandwidth. The AM broadcast band runs about 10KHz per channel, so the maximum usable loaded Q would be: Q = 1,000 KHz / 10 KHz = 100 Any Q more than 100 at BCB frequencies will begin dropping the higher audio frequencies from the modulation. Too narrow band, and all you can hear will be CW (Morse Code). There's also the problem of tuning stability, where anything that causes the high Q coil to drift in frequency, will produce even harmonic distortion of the audio. Copper wire is not particularly temperature stable and will require some form of frequency or tuning stabilization. Ok, back to taxes... -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Barone <ralph@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obhqsu$d4c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #454165 |
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:18:33 +1100, Clifford Heath > <no.spam@please.net> wrote: > >> Why worry about increasing Q above 500, when you can get more >> than the extra 0.2% (lost energy at Q=500) by adding 3 inches >> more antenna wire? > > Because the added 3 inches will add equal amounts of signal and noise, > resulting in no net improvement. Well, maybe not in the case of a crystal radio. The "noise" portion of the SNR in a crystal radio also practically includes ambient audio noise and the noise between your ears (for those of you with tinnitus). Cranking up the RF signal and the RF noise in equal proportions can still help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web