Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] blocking cap current

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] blocking cap current
From: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:54:47 -0400

> >Because we are interested in CURRENT through the blocking cap,  
> >not current through the tube's capacitance, when we are selecting 
> >a blocking cap.
> 
> Is this strictly correct, since we can see that a major part of the
> current through the blocking cap at the higher frequencies is caused by
> the current through the plate - ground capacity?

Let's look at only 14pF total capacitance at the anode side of the 
blocking cap, 3000 ohms load resistance at the anode end of the 
tank, and 3000 volts RMS.

Doing it the incorrect way Rich suggested, blocking cap currents 
on 1.0, 1.8, 7 and 28 MHz respectively are:

0.264, 0.476 a, 1.88 a, and 7.39 amperes.

Working the problem while considering the RF power transferred to 
the tank (by simply adding the current responsible for output power 
to his method) we get:

1.264 a, 1.476 a, 2.88 a, and 8.39 amperes.

The actual current would most often be a few percent higher than 
the second numbers.

The one simple extra step is very much worthwhile. There are 
cases where the error would be less, and cases where the error by 
omitting the current that actually causes the output would produce 
much more error.

Since we know all the necessary parameters to add this step, and 
know those numbers with more certainty than we probably know 
the actual stray impedance (capacitance), and since it would be 
almost nothing to add it in, leaving it out is foolish.

Now the question I still have is what happens to current if the 
anode system becomes inductive on lower frequencies, because of 
the plate choke. I believe that causes a phase shift problem in 
adding the current responsible for output to the circulating current 
calculated through the blocking cap. If the choke is big enough, 
that effect should be relatively minor.

But even if the choke can't be ignored, at least now we get 
everything much closer with no additional effort. And we eliminate 
the perpetual motion effect in Rich's suggestion.

73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>