References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+PARALLEL\s+CAPS\s+IN\s+OUTPUT\s*$/: 39 ]

** Total 39 documents matching your query.**

- 1.
**[Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*"Bill and Liz" <magoo@isp.ca>***Date**:*Wed, 4 Dec 2013 08:11:09 -0500*- I read some time ago where W8JI had employed two mica "snubber" caps of 500 pf each in parallel to give added C in the loading of a TL-922 amp he was repairing. As far as I can discover, these are ra
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00019.html (6,687 bytes)

- 2.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*TexasRF@aol.com***Date**:*Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:16:06 -0500 (EST)*- The voltage rating is not the problem; after all there is less than 300v rms across a 50 ohm load with 1500 watts power. The killer is current because losses are related to current squared. Losses ma
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00020.html (7,334 bytes)

- 3.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:40:12 -0800*- ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: Capacitors don't arc at the RMS voltage. They arc at the peak of the RF cycle. For 1500 watts into 50 ohms, the peak is about 387 VAC. And that's with a 1:1
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00027.html (8,179 bytes)

- 4.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:49:04 +0100*- If one is to believe Philip H. Smith in 'Electronic Applications of the Smith Chart', McGraw-Hill 1969, page 6, Fig 1.3, the maximum voltage appearing on a lossless transmission line with an SWR of i
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00028.html (9,285 bytes)

- 5.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*"Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>***Date**:*Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:55:47 +0100*- Spark gaps are much cheaper. And nobody uses load variables made for 5 or 6 KV with a simple Pi net. 73 Peter Capacitors don't arc at the RMS voltage. They arc at the peak of the RF cycle. For 1500 w
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00029.html (7,782 bytes)

- 6.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:10:28 -0700*- Not true Peter, Unmatched (assuming 50 ohm output Z in 50 ohm circuit) the max possible voltage is (1+p) times the 1:1 SWR voltage. The reflection coefficient p = (SWR-1)/(SWR+1). In a matched circui
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00030.html (10,881 bytes)

- 7.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*TexasRF@aol.com***Date**:*Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:31:08 -0500 (EST)*- Larry, that doesn't seem intuitive at all. For example, if there was a short or open circuit load producing a swr of 1,000,000 then the square root of 1000 times 274v (1500w & 50R) = 274,000 volts. T
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00031.html (11,519 bytes)

- 8.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:01:40 -0800*- ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) REPLY: Nobody? I invite you to look inside my amp or most any amp that uses a vacuum variable as the load cap. And mine has never arced despite the occasional wrong
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00034.html (8,495 bytes)

- 9.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:14:12 -0700*- Gerald, You are correct except you are unable to generate a 1,000,000:1 SWR. A line loss of .001dB will produce a return loss of never less than .002dB which is a reflection coefficient of .999769 wh
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00035.html (12,861 bytes)

- 10.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:43:19 -0700*- Peter, This not a question about who got what right but what is really correct. _Please follow this example:_ 1.) Start with a 1W signal generator with a 50 ohm output will generate 7.07Vrms into a 5
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00036.html (14,925 bytes)

- 11.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>***Date**:*Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:08:34 +0100*- Larry, the argument used by all the authorities is this: At an open circuit the forward voltage is Vf. Because it is reflected as VR and is the same voltage - necessarily - the two voltages add to gi
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00037.html (18,690 bytes)

- 12.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*"Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>***Date**:*Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:23:35 +0100*- I also use vacuum variables as load capacitors in high power amplifiers but for good reason, not for not existent high voltages. Loading capacitors in simple Pi circuits are stressed by current, not
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00038.html (9,823 bytes)

- 13.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:30:01 -0700*- Peter, I'm not sure where this is going. The original statement was about the output capacitor voltage maximums. Obviously other things in the matching network can arc over first but that is a differ
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00040.html (19,367 bytes)

- 14.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:33:14 -0800*- ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped) VR and is the same voltage - necessarily - the two voltages add to give a reflected voltage of 2Vf. To get more requires energy to be made. Vf is the rms volts that
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00041.html (8,697 bytes)

- 15.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>***Date**:*Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:14:41 +0100*- This is where life gets interesting....... About ten or twelve years back, there was a big argument about whether you should have a conjugate match between PA and load. Argument one was that Thevenin
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00042.html (10,712 bytes)

- 16.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*"Carl" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>***Date**:*Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:10:20 -0500*- Looking at it another way Bruene was a respected engineer in the military and non ham commercial world with degree credentials to match. I also had several email exchanges with him during his spat wi
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00043.html (12,238 bytes)

- 17.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:37:43 -0700*- Multiple reflections in the data world are very easy to see with a TDR. They do exist and the only thing to keep them from going on forever is the reflection coefficient at both ends and the loss in
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00044.html (11,855 bytes)

- 18.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*"Peter Voelpel" <dj7ww@t-online.de>***Date**:*Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:03:44 +0100*- Itīs quite simple without measurements. Lets assume the amp is tuned for full legal output into a low SWR on 80m which needed 1000pf of load capacitance. Then suddenly the SWR goes sky high because t
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00045.html (9,952 bytes)

- 19.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 20:00:49 -0700*- Peter, In your argument the output is not matched to the new open circuit and as such can not produce the voltage I calculated as being the maximum possible. You are correct in this case. However if
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00046.html (12,657 bytes)

- 20.
**Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT**(score: 1) **Author**:*Jim W7RY <w7ry@centurytel.net>***Date**:*Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:46:58 -0800*- I cant believe my radio said that!!! LOL! 73 Jim W7RY the argument used by all the authorities is this: At an open circuit the forward voltage is Vf. Because it is reflected as VR and is the same vol
- /archives//html/Amps/2013-12/msg00048.html (18,597 bytes)

This search system is powered by