Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Is screen potential important?

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Is screen potential important?
From: itr@nanoteq.co.za (Ian Roberts)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:31:16 +0200
measures wrote:
> 
> >Rich says:
> >
> >>The basic problem is that there was no way to keep the screen bypass
> >>capacitor adequately charged during voice modulation
> >
> >I don't understand. It appears to me that when there is a signal, there are
> >screen volts.
> 
> Not until the screen bypass C becomes sufficiently charged.  Another
> problem is keeping the screen bypass C from mostly discharging on soft
> syllables.  The semi-obvious solution is to Not Allow the screen bypass C
> to discharge as long as the amplifier is in operation.  This is where
> Thornley seemingly derailed
> 
> > If it's a big signal, there's lots of screen volts, which you
> >need because you wants lots of plate current. If it's a small signal, the
> >peak plate current is less, so you don't need as many screen volts.
> 
> In order to achieve linear amplification, current gain must be constant
> at All signal levels.  Screen potential has a large effect on current
> gain.  At 33% of normal screen volts, an 8171 exhibits 1/4 of normal
> current gain.
> 
> > So it
> >appears that screen time constant should be short enough to follow the
> >envelope of the signal - which in the original, it was.
> >
> The result will undoubtedly be varying gain.


Seems to me that this beast will do just fine on 100% duty cycle modes:
AM, FM and SSB-SSTV, SSB-RTTY, SSB-PSK, but query it's CW and speech-SSB
performance?
What was it originally mean to do?

Ian, ZS6BTE

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.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>