[Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question

[Carl]

By the time a NE2 fired at 90V the front end coils would be fried 
especially on the lower bands. The Navy used a neon bulb to protect 
front ends from TX antennas that were often only 50' away but it was 
biased so it fired at a much lower voltage. It was also much more robust 
than a NE2.

A neon will also bleed off lightning charge buildup from a nearby strike 
or cloud to cloud discharges. With a Beverage antenna its not even 
local, Ive been bit by a strike several miles away.

ARC-5 receivers had a NE2 or similar which was effective against the 
fairly low power of the matching TX.

Carl
KM1H



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Forster" <jfor at quik.com>
To: <w0ng at comcast.net>; <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question


AQn NE-2 will not absorb the energy from lightning. It's more for static 
buildup on the antenna. Yes, it's a good idea.
-John



w0ng at comcast.net wrote:

> Would appreciate some advice here. I have a National NC-303 receiver 
> that I'm restoring. I had a 75A-2 once that had a neon lamp (NE-2 ???) 
> across the antenna input connection to supposedly act as a surge 
> supressor for lightning, strong static charges and strong rf energy 
> from nearby transmitters. Is this a good idea? Does this really work? 
> Is there a better device than a neon bulb? Appreciate any opinions, 
> etc. 73, Bill, w0ng

______________________________________________________________
Boatanchors mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html