Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] Grid Vs cathode drive

To: Hsu <Jbenson@sohu.co>
Subject: Re: [Amps] Grid Vs cathode drive
From: Peter Chadwick <g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk>
Reply-to: g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:24:07 +0200 (CEST)
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
Hsu asked:
>Why many Amplifiers using cathode driven?why not grid ?<
My answer ( and it's doubtless open to argument) is two fold.
First, the majority of transceivers are of the 100 to 200 watt output level, so 
a grounded grid triode is a convenient way to go. Secondly, the FCC rules, 
certainly until recently and maybe still, for I don't know if they've 
implemented the changes they proposed, prevented manufacturers from selling in 
the US amplifiers with more than a certain amount of gain - the idea being to 
prevent CBers using illegal power. (And a vain hope that was!) So it made sense 
in power distribution to run about 13 dB of gain in the amplifier from a 100  
watt driver, while for a lot of people,100 watts is a good power level to run 
anyway. And 13dB of gain in grounded grid is a reasonable number to get.
Given all this, the grounded grid triode amplifier is cheaper to produce, 
because you don't need a screen grid supply, and generally happens to be a bit 
more linear than tetrode, which you would need for a grounded cathode 
amplifier. I discount a neutralised triode grid driven amp these days......too 
complicated and thus expensive.

The downside is that you need tuned circuits in the cathode for decent 
linearity - I was always surprised at the 30L1 not having those.

The grounded cathode tetrode with grid swamping isn't to be discounted, but  
can have the linearity improved with negative feedback, without too much 
difficulty.
Does this answer the question?
73
Peter G3RZP
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

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