See below;
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 7/14/06 at 9:48 PM Tom W8JI wrote:
>> Why don't you ask these folks:
>>
>> http://www.wattsunlimited.com/
>>
>> Surely one of you have disected this thing already. No,
>> it's not a good supply for a "tube with handles", but it's
>> pretty cool for what it is...
>
>
>17% no load to full load regulation isn't so hot Joe. I'm
>not sure how that would be for IM products or CW waveform
>since power out is generally about the square of supply
>voltage change. The CW waveform would look funny with that
>much sag.
The Heathkit 220 and a few other models had around 15% regulation which is
right on the edge of
saturation (they ran a high flux density to save on weight and cost). They
don't saturate, but under full
load they're cutting it pretty close. A good stiff power supplies sag will be
around 11% to 13% typically.
I always use 12% when I'm figuring the DC voltage needed from a transformer.
>
>As for faults, the problem faced by a supply near the
>negative rail, especially one with a grounded screen, is a
>HV to ground fault dumps crap back into the supply. Most
>supplies are pretty good at running into shorts, but they
>are almost always terrible about handling reverse applied
>voltages from supplies hundreds of times higher in voltage.
It's best to switch a transformer instead of using a choke in this instance.
Any HV DC coming back
would be isolated from the switching transistors/FET's, and their drive or
oscillator. If it were me, I'd
use a converter circuit for the supply.
>
>73 Tom
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Amps mailing list
>Amps@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
Best,
Will
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|