Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60521 invoked from network); 9 May 2004 22:31:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-mxscan01.plus.net) (212.159.14.235) by ptb-mailstore04.plus.net with SMTP; 9 May 2004 22:31:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 42715 invoked from network); 9 May 2004 22:31:15 -0000 X-Filtered-by: Plusnet (hmail v1.01) X-Spam-detection-level: 11 Received: from ptb-mxcore01.plus.net (212.159.14.215) by ptb-mxscan01.plus.net with SMTP; 9 May 2004 22:31:14 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1BMwpG-000Azr-5W for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Sun, 09 May 2004 22:31:14 +0000 X-Fake-Domain: majordom Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1BMwoe-00033c-H1 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 23:30:36 +0100 Received: from [213.232.95.59] (helo=relay.salmark.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1BMwod-00033T-Vs for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 23:30:36 +0100 Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.17]) by relay.salmark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BN3N3-0006Ul-4D for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:30:33 +0100 X-Fake-Domain: fwd08.aul.t-online.de Received: from fwd08.aul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1BMwmq-0001KB-00; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:28:44 +0200 X-Fake-Domain: oben Received: from oben (rxvWIOZc8e4kUhw+d79j-4t9Tf+BrdPCjg1LUjEk9dij2RsBIqnfUq@[80.128.182.133]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1BMwma-1riZ2e0; Mon, 10 May 2004 00:28:28 +0200 X-Bad-Message-ID: no DNS (oben) Message-ID: <001101c43615$b71730e0$ee9bfea9@oben> From: dj9dw To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <001701c43602$1b335540$2102000a@ibm> Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:33:56 +0200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Seen: false X-ID: rxvWIOZc8e4kUhw+d79j-4t9Tf+BrdPCjg1LUjEk9dij2RsBIqnfUq X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR=1.052,RCVD_IN_NJABL=0.1,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: LF: Re: TX-ouput transformer problems X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PN-SPAMFiltered: yes X-Spam-Rating: 2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick" To: Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 10:02 PM Subject: LF: TX-ouput transformer problems > Hello all, > > I completed my G0MRF-transmitter, and today I've done the > first tests on it. > All is working fine, except the output circuit. > > As far as I can see now, the outputt-transformer on the FET's is > not good. > > I'm using an old core from the HV-circuit of a computer monitor. > I got this tip from Jim, M0BMU a while ago. > Core size is about 63x39x14mm (2 "C"shaped halves, held together > with a metal spring clip) > I payed a lot off atention to have no air gap. > > Used 10 turns on the primary side, centre tapped. > (That means 2 times 5 turns.......) > Secundairy coil max. 21 turns with taps, all as described in the > original design. > Well, at 15V drain voltage I already had 9Amp........ > With 40V over 50 Ohm....... > FET's got hot........ > I changed primairy to 2 times 7 turns instead of 2 times 5 turns, > and that gave me 15V, 5Amp with also around 40V over 50 Ohm. > So, higher efficiency...... > > I wonder if anyone has experience with these core's and have hints about > number of turns to be used, before I start to get into endless rewinding > coils etc. > > 73 > > Dick, pa4vhf > > > > > Hello Dick and group, I also was curious abt the output xformer, but what caused the trouble in my case was the timing of the PA-FETs. While one was still conducting, the seconde one was already conducting. The result was heavy ringing, hot FETs and miserable efficiency. One can prove that problem by watching the Voltage at CT. In my case it dropped rapidly seen as a negative pulse. Removing the two schottkies did not bring the highest performence, but now I can use it as a transmitter at least. 230 Watts out into a dummy at 60V DC and 5 Amps. Good luck and let us know abt your experience. vy 73 de Peter, DJ9DW.