Re: LF: 500 kHz

To:	<[email protected]>
Subject:	Re: LF: 500 kHz
From:	"Alan Melia" <[email protected]>
Date:	Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:54:40 +0100
Delivered-to:	[email protected]
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=efehTNFD3v7SpLm2xzPcvE3+UQ8b7lcpqMJSVe/lwCjUFJ5mYqppRUl0UZUUdvsRvp3aWQ5eHRoQ0/pVmk44oAmLB6+LwztpE3RROQ0Tmz3aGRD+WC+Eb4ZOG/MAhqd2sd3fj8IGmN+qbW/U7VIOqVDIkHNQKbvPr87YMfFMJtc= ;
Domainkey-status:	good (test mode)
Domainkey-status:	good (testing)
References:	<[email protected]>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	[email protected]

Hi David, its not optimum ...an electronic cut and try !!.....but try
putting 1000pF (or a few pF less) across L2, which makes it parallel
resonant at 1000kHz and increases the 2nd harmonic rejection at the cost of
slightly less ultimate out-of-band rejection

Cheers de Alan G3NYK

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 April 2007 13:15
Subject: Re: LF: 500 kHz


>
> This should do the job.
>
>
> _http://www.g0mrf.freeserve.co.uk/lpf.htm_
> (http://www.g0mrf.freeserve.co.uk/lpf.htm)
>
>
> 73
>
> David

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: 500 khz, hamilton mal LF: Re: 502.3 1220bst..., Gw3UEP LF: Re: Re: 502.3 1220bst..., hamilton mal LF: Re: Re: 502.3 1220bst..., hamilton mal LF: 500 KHz, Victor van Kooten LF: 500 kHz, Brenda Hayes LF: Re: 500 kHz, Vernall LF: Cool morning, Vernall Re: LF: 500 kHz, G0MRF Re: LF: 500 kHz, Alan Melia <=

Previous by Date:	Re: LF: 500 kHz, G0MRF
Next by Date:	LF: LF/9v1, Laurence KL1X
Previous by Thread:	Re: LF: 500 kHz, G0MRF
Next by Thread:	LF: 500-Hooray!, G3vtt
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]