Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] parasitic suppressors

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] parasitic suppressors
From: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:40:23 EST
On Wed, 10 Dec 97 15:52:09 -0800 Rich Measures <measures@vc.net> writes:
c 
>>
>>The actual ratings of RG58A/U is 650W at 10 MHz  not 10M. At 50 MHz 
>it is
>>250W. But that has nothing to do with the discussion.
>>You must have been taking dancing lessons from another.....
>>
>I did the math.  


Congrats


>>
>>>As I recall, the center conductor of RG58/u is quite a bit smaller 
>than 
>>>#16 -- like maybe #19.  If 1A will "seriously heat up #16 gauge Cu", 
>why 
>>>doesn't 2.3A seriously heat up #19 (or so) gauge copper?  
>>>-  At 25A/60Hz, #16 gauge Cu gets seriously warm in free air.  Does 
>it =
>make sense that
>>> 1A at 28MHz could do essentially the same thing?  
>>
>>
>>Why dont you just try it and find out. 
>>  Replace all the plate wiring and
>>strap in your SB-220 and key down for several minutes.
>>
>I don't need to try Cold Fusion to know that it's a delusion.  


That is a pure 100% cop -out Rich.  Do the test before you whine about it
please. 


>-  1A at 28Mhz in #16 gauge Cu,, generating serious heat?  Give us a =
>break.  And besides that, if Ls was cookin' Rs, it would leave =
>barbeque grill marks on Rs, which it does not. 

I suspect that you really do not understand RF 


>,,, ,,, 
>... ... 
>>>One SB-220 owner told me that he took the 220  to work and put a 
>probe 
>>>from a spectrum analyzer through the perforated cover of the output 
>>>compartment.  The signal was 50wpm CW dits.  He said he could see 
>the 
>>>damped-wave ringing at c. 110MHz at the beginning and ending of each 
>
>>>dit, and whenever the amp. was keyed or unkeyed with zero signal 
>drive.  
>>
>>And replacing the possibly overheated and overvalue 47 Ohm 2W carbon
>>cured it ??
>>There should have also been grid current flickering when it was zero
>>drive keyed if the parasitic was that pronounced as to always be 
>there. 
>
>>It would not suprise me that a slight change in the L spacing on the
>>resistor would have altered the analyzer picture. Did your owner take 
>his
>>tests thru to a cure or conclusion?
>>
>No.   Damped ringing is not regenerative.  Damped ringing will always 
>=
>be there whenever the anode current changes, no matter how low the =
>VHF-Rp of the suppressor happens to be.  

Damped Ringing....is this a new phrase for you....haven't heard that one
before except maybe in a pre 1940 QST.  
  
>
>>Too bad; but that is still just a minor parasite....
>
>=80  no parasite, just damped ringing of an L-C resonant circuit.  

Like maybe ding a ling?


>
>>I asked about a Big
>>Bang analyzer picture. Or do you find those dancing shoes moving 
>again?
>
>One would need a memory-type spectrum analyzer to lay in wait for the 
>=
>Big Bang. 

Anyone that expects to offer an opinion that they wish to claim as fact
should have the proof. IMO you have offered none. 
I should expect that any responsible amp manufacturer would at least own
a Spectrum Analyzer.  It is only the fringe area that dreams up theories
without proof.....such as TWA # 800. 



> Most stock amplifiers never ever have a big bang.  


In plain English....Bull Shit


>... ... 
>>The Big Bang will generate tremendous amounts of RF, at that instant, 
>of
>>unknown frequencies. Zeners and the like do not handle that very 
>well. 
>
>-   The current path from the alleged anode/grid vanishing-gas arc is 
>=
>not through the bias zener.  However, with a parasitic oscillation, =
>the fault current path would be through the bias zener.  


Hey danceman....Parasitic or RF Bang...same path amigo...comprende??


>>It
>>does not have to be in the direct path if the wiring is saturated 
>with it
>>and in the SB-220 at least the Zener protrudes into the RF cavity.  
>
>It might be interesting to measure the C between the chassis and the =
>zener diode stud that protrudes in the RF cavity.  

So do it 


>
>>> The voltage drop across this amount of R would be 2.4v peak -- 
>which 
>>>equals 0.06w peak in a 100 ohm Rs.  
>>
>>That assumes a DC path only. If the L in the suppressor is acting as 
>a
>>RFC then the R takes all the gaff or in actuality the load is 
>somewhat
>>shared assuming an imperfect RFC.
>
>This L is only 0.09uH.  With a DC pulse?, hardly.  With a 110MHz =
>regeneration, possibly.  


Yep....at DC no way
At 110MHz possible
Glad that you may finally be understanding RF Rich. Now take the complete
plate circuit RF  components in your next lesson. By that I mean from the
plate cap to the input of the HF tank circuit. 
Kudos to the few that have commented and understand where I am leading
this.

73   Carl   KM1H


>
>cheers
>Rich...
>
>R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K   
>
>

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
Search:                   http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>