Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Class\s+A\s+for\s+AM\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Class\s+A\s+for\s+AM\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:41:25 -0600; Hello Ken, One reason for few answers to your question might be that, like a lot of things, it depends. There is not "one true answer". Efficiency is a moving target with linear AM. Speech pattern is; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00178.html (10,464 bytes)
2. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:34:00 -0600; Except in class A the input power never changes. If it is set up for 6000 watts input in order to provide 1500 watts output @25% efficiency then the input power will always be a constant 6000 watts w; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00179.html (12,212 bytes)
3. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:05:48 -0500; That's the way I see it also. Since it should make around 50% on peaks it should make around 25% on carrier, and 3000 watts plus headroom of standing power should do it. It will just be useful outpu; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00180.html (9,346 bytes)
4. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Robert B. Bonner" <rbonner@qro.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0600; Hey Tom, isn't that why they went to PUSH PULL finals with a link coupled output? Still simulates class A with a pair of class B finals... I think a couple nice 4-1000's glowing in the rack should ju; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00181.html (10,274 bytes)
5. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Jim Tonne" <tonne@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:00:00 -0500; I have to share with you guys a comment from a fellow at a major broadcast equipment manufacturer (located in Dallas, Texas). We were chatting about a circa 1970 screen-modulated AM rig. Those thing; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00182.html (9,176 bytes)
6. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:05:55 -0600; Hi Tom, I was just reading some info on class A amplifiers. It seems that a typical triode class A1 amplifier (no grid current) the efficiency is in the range of 20% to 35%. A class A2 (some grid cu; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00183.html (11,521 bytes)
7. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:14:15 -0600; Gary, You're right, input power doesn't change. You could just plan for the worst case dissipation with carrier. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@con; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00184.html (8,431 bytes)
8. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:26:36 -0600; No. Push pull has nothing to do with amplitude linearity in RF service. 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00185.html (12,109 bytes)
9. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:33:00 -0600; Hi Jim, True enough! The more power you take out the higher the efficiency and the less plate dissipation. 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contes; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00186.html (9,799 bytes)
10. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:34:00 -0600; Hello Gary, Isn't that 50% difference only true because we cause it to be tuned that way? We could tune it to be more or less different between carrier and pep but we cause it to be 50% for the sake; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00187.html (10,438 bytes)
11. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "kenw2dtc" <kenw2dtc@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:27:03 -0500; Wow, I had the computer off for a bunch of hours and when I logged back in there were a number of very informative answers. I thank everyone for the information, and it's causing me to do more readin; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00188.html (9,031 bytes)
12. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Bill L. Fuqua" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:16:37 -0500; I have wondered about that. There may be some improvement. During the time that the single ended amplifier is approaching cutoff there is considerable non-linearity. In a AB push-pull amplifier both; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00189.html (10,282 bytes)
13. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Bill L. Fuqua" <wlfuqu00@uky.edu>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:15:10 -0500; "We were chatting about a circa 1970 screen-modulated AM rig. Those things are also "efficiency-modulated" and so operate at about the same efficiency as a pure linear amplifier." Control grid modula; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00190.html (9,547 bytes)
14. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:13:07 -0600; 25% is already pretty conservative. It -would- be interesting to see a real test case. The data may already be out there somewhere. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps ma; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00191.html (9,941 bytes)
15. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:16:47 -0600; I agree. It would seem that you shouldn't have to run so conservative with push-pull to achieve the same or better linearity as a single. We know the even orders cancel. Maybe some other unwanted eff; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00192.html (7,284 bytes)
16. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:06:50 -0700; I m confused as to how the number of responses with a given answer means that the answer is valid. The laws of physics are established by mother nature, not majority vote. You got a pretty definitiv; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00194.html (8,734 bytes)
17. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:50:27 -0500; That does not apply to the AF signal content, or modulation. It only applies to the RF waveform and even-order distortion products of the RF signal. Push-pull cancels the even harmonic distortion of; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00195.html (8,595 bytes)
18. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 05:42:11 -0500; I was using the theoretical maximum. The practical maxmium could be any value less than that (and proably will be). I haven't designed that many class A amplifiers where efficiency was an issue, so; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00196.html (10,704 bytes)
19. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Jim Forsyth" <mail@jimforsyth.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:09:46 -0800; I'm reminded of an experiment that was allegedly conducted in Europe several decades ago. A large group of people was assembled in plain view of a tall tower. Each person was asked to write down his; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00197.html (9,214 bytes)
20. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:31:42 -0600; Push pull is necessary in a class B audio amplifier because the second tube makes up for the missing half cycle of the first tube. With only one tube in a class B audio amplifier the output would be; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00199.html (12,858 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]