Christopher Cox wrote:

Actually, a good idea, heck, tear apart two old am radios, use the
cores side-by-side, cut down on the turns and allow you to go lower ....

JS

er, you mean add.

No, I meant what I said and said what I meant ...

Two cores will not require as many turns as one ... cut down on the
turns one core would require.

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Christopher Cox wrote:

Actually, a good idea, heck, tear apart two old am radios, use the cores
side-by-side, cut down on the turns and allow you to go lower ....

JS

er, you mean add.

No, I meant what I said and said what I meant ...

Two cores will not require as many turns as one ... cut down on the turns
one core would require.

Regards,
JS

Why bother doing this? The AM coil will tune to within 10% of the frequency
as is with about 400 PF. Add another 100 PF or so.

Tam

Tam/WB2TT wrote:

Why bother doing this? The AM coil will tune to within 10% of the frequency
as is with about 400 PF. Add another 100 PF or so.

Tam



Because less conductor results in less conductor resistance and results
in a higher Q.

Regards,
JS

Tam/WB2TT wrote:


Why bother doing this? The AM coil will tune to within 10% of the frequency
as is with about 400 PF. Add another 100 PF or so.

Tam



Well, there is also the "thing" about keeping the tuned circuit in the
range of presented impedance you wish ...

Regards,
JS