Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de06.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 6F258380000A3; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:34:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SzaLr-0000pl-03 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:33:07 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SzaLq-0000pc-40 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:33:06 +0100 Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SzaLo-0003MB-E3 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:33:05 +0100 Received: by obqv19 with SMTP id v19so3025542obq.16 for ; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Vs9fvVNrf73LeqvfnzMmNdraYl7vyzjpjrzpNavvxVM=; b=0+EJOHaoDWP3Q0uz2shfo5uMnYZpOdPyJ6B17yaQ+sWCk+6447eS8iEKmS0VdZyag/ ZX6RfvCCQdMOUBHI5IkfyCuz5tgE2WWQSKV6uZ6qsIaWZAu9K6V82GqgtChFlsNRkl3k k8FXqkR4IjiyoCaiXoYxA5lydgWbDoVzGA/nv5rAqTwVl0iUaNGQb5KDbi6rqEDHvLgG PTaIklZZLxFk8dbZCaQtKd/iLt7dWHfTluKuBrr7y91bNKBG7DZ9/YYG2kZEuPMQRxI5 r5EQ9Ks9NjGB3Eqv7ENa/oxollOnNRX3g/BWS9Qpyx6hWKz18G/s7cOt6J9PmtJwE+GS XY/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.14.36 with SMTP id m4mr969245obc.71.1344547982185; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.39.10 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:33:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50238984.4060106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> References: <5022E802.30404@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50230604.9040801@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50238984.4060106@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:33:02 +1000 Message-ID: From: Dimitrios Tsifakis To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > What i forgot to say: Actually i can not recommend a class E for /p > purposes. A class E is a fine thing and it is fascinating to see that one > can generate 1 kW with a single FET and > 95% efficiency and without any > ferrite transformers. But the efficiency and voltages and currents are > highly dependant on the load resistance and eventual reactive components. As > long as the SWR is < 1:1.5 or so, it is fine but then it becomes critical. > I lost a FET in the field while using a 100m kite vertical antenna. The kite > dropped and i wasn't watching for a minute and then BAANG! If you use the > class E at home, in a fixed antenna installation with known and stable SWR, > then this is fine. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [209.85.214.171 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dtsifakis[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: Re: LF: Caps for Class-E amp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:460361824:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-m004.1 ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d40ce50242cea218b X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none > What i forgot to say: Actually i can not recommend a class E for /p > purposes. A class E is a fine thing and it is fascinating to see that one > can generate 1 kW with a single FET and > 95% efficiency and without any > ferrite transformers. But the efficiency and voltages and currents are > highly dependant on the load resistance and eventual reactive components. As > long as the SWR is < 1:1.5 or so, it is fine but then it becomes critical. > I lost a FET in the field while using a 100m kite vertical antenna. The kite > dropped and i wasn't watching for a minute and then BAANG! If you use the > class E at home, in a fixed antenna installation with known and stable SWR, > then this is fine. Well, that's why I thought the monster IXYS FET I used, which is obviously an overkill, will probably be hard to kill. I can't possibly exceed the 55 A current limit (it's fused to much less than that) and I won't exceed the drain (or gate) limits as it's already quite high (500 V) but also I will add a beefy transzord or zener to ensure compliance. The capacitors are maybe more likely to get damaged, so that's something I need to consider by overengineering that part. In any case, I won't experiment with kites, just good ol' plain earth antennas which are quite robust mechanically and won't fall on the ground because they are already there :-) 73, Dimitris VK1SV