Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT

To: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>, Amps <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT
From: peter chadwick <g8on@fsmail.net>
Reply-to: g8on@fsmail.net
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:14:41 +0100
List-post: <amps@contesting.com">mailto:amps@contesting.com>
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 demanded a conjugate match for optimum power transfer. Argument two 
(Warren Bruene, W5OLB) was that the tx should have the lowest possible output 
impedance for maximum efficiency. Now I incline to Bruene's approach. W8JI was 
for Thevenin. Experiments showed that linear PAs showed maximum linear output 
when there was a Thevenin match, but if you did the usual sums on PAs, you saw 
that that the efficiency was around 50% - which you expect - and thus the 
Thevenin match gave much the same answer. As soon as you applied it to Class C, 
you no longer had a linear system and the Thevenin match camp claimed it was no 
longer valid. This is as maybe, but seems to me to have some definite 
legitimacy as an argument. 

So the impedance looking back into a correctly tuned linear amplifier, whether 
you believe W5OLB or W8JI, actually ends up about the same - not that far off 
50 or whatever ohms.

So the reflection back from the tx to the antenna is pretty small.......

Obviously a bit different with a Class C pa, but not that much......

So I think multiple reflections can be discounted, at least for correctly tuned 
amplifiers and PAs.

73

Peter G3RZP


========================================
 Message Received: Dec 04 2013, 11:33 PM
 From: "Bill Turner" <dezrat1242@wildblue.net>
 To: "Amps" <amps@contesting.com>
 Cc: 
 Subject: Re: [Amps] PARALLEL CAPS IN OUTPUT
 
 ORIGINAL MESSAGE:          (may be snipped)
 
 On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:08:34 +0100, Peter wrote:
 
 >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 give a
 reflected voltage of 2Vf. To get more requires energy to be made.
 >
 >So on a loss less line, the only voltage reflected back to the tx is 2Vf - 
 >where 
 Vf is the rms volts that would appear at the load when the line is matched.
 
 REPLY:
 
 But in an open circuit, isn't the reflected voltage reflected again? And
 again and again? The only thing that keeps it from increasing forever is
 loss in the line, I would think. 
 
 Can't prove it, but it seems logical. 
 
 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>