Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] 200-ohm tank and "un-un" in HF amp design?

To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] 200-ohm tank and "un-un" in HF amp design?
From: Larry Benko <xxw0qe@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 16:16:02 -0600
List-post: <amps@contesting.com">mailto:amps@contesting.com>
The way I see it the 200:50 ohm bifilar xfmr reduces the loading cap value but doubles the voltage requirement and eliminates the need for a choke to ground in case the plate blocking cap(s) fail. It does not need to be a super well designed xfmr since a little leakage inductance can be compensated by the PI network. I have one in an amp (pair of 3CX800s) of mine that is 30 bifilar turns on a T200-2 if I remember correctly.

73,
Larry, W0QE

On 10/20/2013 11:03 AM, Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:51:44 -0700, N7CXI wrote:

Assuming adequate core/wire sizing and airflow, can anyone think of a
solid reason *not* to design a legal-limit HF amp output tank for 200
ohms, then use a 4:1 "un-un" transformer to step it down to 50?
REPLY:

If the only reason to do this is to use a smaller load capacitor, I would
suggest instead to switch in some doorknob type padder caps instead. IMO, a
pi-net is a better impedance matcher than a transformer. Lower loss, less
cost, more reliable. Designing a broadband transformer is tricky business, a
pi-network is relatively easy.

73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps


_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

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