Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.203.68 with SMTP id ko4csp42157igc; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:43:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.78.77 with SMTP id z13mr253359wjw.64.1396032201128; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hi13si2825681wib.46.2014.03.28.11.43.20 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1WTbIw-0005nH-9A for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:14:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1WTbIv-0005n8-S7 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:14:57 +0000 Received: from nina.ucs.mun.ca ([134.153.232.76]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WTbIt-00042t-RR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:14:56 +0000 Received: from plato.ucs.mun.ca (plato.ucs.mun.ca [134.153.232.153]) by nina.ucs.mun.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s2SIErgt004550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:44:53 -0230 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:44:53 -0230 (NDT) From: jcraig@mun.ca X-X-Sender: jcraig@plato.ucs.mun.ca To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) 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: Hi Dave and Stefan, Thank-you for the very helpful information. I hope to get started on the new QRO TX soon. 73 Joe VO1NA [...] Content analysis details: (-1.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [134.153.232.76 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: b08ad821341ca291e1fd930f7b9292d3 Subject: RE: LF: Polyprop caps [Was VO1NA_OK2BVG] Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1719232024-214758873-1396030493=:6090" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1719232024-214758873-1396030493=:6090 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi Dave and Stefan, Thank-you for the very helpful information. I hope to get started=20 on the new QRO TX soon. 73 Joe VO1NA On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Dave G3WCB. wrote: > Joe, > > Polypropylene caps are recommended for LF work. WIMA MKP types work well. > FKPs are even better, if you can find them. It's the current through them > that seems to be the killer, so it's best to make up the desired value wi= th > parallel combinations. > > 73, Dave G3WCB IO91RM > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Sch=E4fer > Sent: 28 March 2014 10:09 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: VO1NA_OK2BVG > > > Hi Joe, > > Class E is fascinating and can be high efficient, 98% or so. However the > output impedance has to be quite exactly 50 Ohm +-j0! A SWR of 1.5 can > reduce the efficiency significantly so that all the advantages of the > class E design are lost. > Thus, i'm using class-D designs. I have 2 PAs for 630m. A small one > running at 12 VDC, > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/100W-475KHZ-PA.png and > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19882028/MF/DK7FC%20472%20kHz%20PA%20= 15W > %2B100W.JPG > and a large one giving 0...1.2 kW, running as a H bridge, switching > directly at 320V DC. > The efficiency can easily reach more than 90% too. > For you, i assume a normal class D using 2 (or 2x2) FETs against ground, > using a ferrite output transformer may be the best choice. This design > is used by many active MF stns, i know. > What power range do you inted to realise? > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC > > Am 28.03.2014 00:24, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> I have some IRFP140BPF hexfets. Using Alan's G3NYK Class E >> design spreadsheet for 200 watts at 13.8 Vdd gives 144 and 119 nf >> for C1 and C2 and 1.14 uH for L. I have used silver mica for C1 and C2 >> but these are expensive. What do you use? I remember mentioned your >> class e experiments. >> >> 73 >> Joe >> >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Stefan Sch=E4fer wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 26.03.2014 19:36, schrieb jcraig@mun.ca: >>>> Perhaps some day I will QRO! >>>> >>>> Joe >>> >>> Yes, please :-) >>> >>> 73, Stefan >>> >>> > > > ---1719232024-214758873-1396030493=:6090--