>
>> > Indeed. At the other end of the spectrum we find a 1000pF "bypass" on
>> > the anode supply. At 1.8MHz, 1000pF has 88-ohms of Xc. It is my
>> > opinion that this does not represent good engineering practice. By
>> > comparison, at the lowest frequency of operation, the SB-220 has a
>> > 20-ohm
>>
>> Were I running a string of electrolytic filter caps on a 160 meter amp, I
>> would want a total of .01 mfd bypass capacitance at the base of the plate
>> choke.
>>
>> I found that even on the Alpha 77 series that 160 meter RF is abundant all
>> the way back to the line cord if additional bypassing is not done. The B&W
>> 800 choke is not too swift on "Top-Band."
>>
>> (((73)))
>> Phil, K5PC
>
>Hi Phil,
>
>I have three questions:
>
>1.) What is the impedance of the choke in the AL-1500
>
The L of RFC-3 is not stated in the AL-1500's parts list.
>2.) What is the impedance seen at the base of the choke
>referenced to chassis?
>
Depends on the C of the bypass capacitor. My guess is that roughly
0.8A-rms passes through RFC-3 at 1.8MHz.
>3.) What difference do you expect to see?
>
>You must have the answers, or you wouldn't be able to make a
>determination of bypass requirements.
>
Your method of determination appears to be flawed.
>In my determination, the ripple in the supply at 1.8 MHz is about
>1/2 of a percent when actual impedances are considered. Hardly
>enough to worry about.
>
Adrift in a sea of misunderstanding. // RF voltage on electrolytic
filter caps is the main concern.
>What major performance changes do you expect to see, if the 1/2
>percent ripple is reduced from .5% to say .08 %?
The HV RF bypass cap Has Nothing to do with ripple, Tom.
> Or is this a "feel
>better mod"? (Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't hurt
>anything else)
>
.... clueless
end
- Rich..., 805.386.3734, www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|