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.

21. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:54:18 -0600; The efficiency is on the order of 35% at carrier with screen grid modulation or control grid modulation and the peak envelope power efficiency is 70% to 75% very similar to the efficiency changes th; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00201.html (8,867 bytes)
22. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:17:29 -0600; Yes tom, as far as heat dissipation goes I would think that would be in the ball park. But actual efficiencies that the amplifier needs to operate at would be figured at the peak envelope power leve; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00203.html (12,047 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:45:07 -0600; It has to do with the plate load impedance that the tube sees. In order to handle the modulation peaks the load on the tube must show the proper impedance to allow the proper plate voltage swing for; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00204.html (12,946 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:42:26 -0600; As a further note on efficiency, it is not unique to amplifying an AM signal. The exact same efficiency ratios are present when amplifying an SSB signal or a CW signal. As power level is lowered by d; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00205.html (14,806 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:36:06 -0600; Yes, I see what you mean. The plate current peaks will not double in class A as they would in class B. That 2x increase is not there in class A. We were saying 50% efficiency change for class B, but; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00206.html (10,756 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:53:39 -0600; Hi Jeff, No that's not really the case. The plate current peaks have to go just as high in class A as they do in class B. The difference is that on the negative swing of grid drive the class A amplif; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00208.html (13,210 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:21:48 -0600; Thank you, Tom, for that information. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00209.html (8,437 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:22:09 -0600; Ok Gary, Thank you for that information. Jeff/KA5MIR _______________________________________________ Amps mailing list Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00210.html (10,042 bytes)
29. Re: [Amps] Class A for AM (score: 1): Author: KA5MIR <ars.ka5mir@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:56:18 -0600; Ken, After much helpful on and off-list discussion, I'm left with the following corrections to my original post. For Class A AM: Average Input Power will remain constant at or above the level needed; /archives//html/Amps/2006-11/msg00212.html (10,989 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 29
Page: [1] [2]