Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3938 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1999 23:32:04 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 19 Aug 1999 23:32:04 +0100 Received: (qmail 11255 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1999 22:36:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 19 Aug 1999 22:36:25 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11HaYQ-0006Nu-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:21:02 +0100 Received: from carbon.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.92]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11HaYO-0006Np-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:21:00 +0100 Received: from [212.140.1.195] (helo=default) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 11HaYG-0003le-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:20:52 +0100 Message-ID: <006301beea90$b7481fa0$53048cd4@default> From: "Alan Melia" To: "rsgb_lf_group" Subject: LF: re Class E amp....Rik` Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:38:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sender: Hi Rik that is an interesting article. I haven't had the chance to compare the formulae yet, but the article I was offering around was a slightly later version of Ref 8. I think the parameters in the network may have been optimised a little better by the time the later article was written. It is probably unfair to compare the output after all the filters when you are expecting to loose 15% of the power in the matching and filter network. The advantage I would see is that the dissipation in the fets would be minimised. I also think that Dave's design seems to be particularly good, as from the comments that are made by people who have constructed copies, it does not seem to suffer from a lot of the instability problems that can occur with push-pull class D systems. A 'selling point' made by Sokal is that the class E circuit is virtually bombproof, even if you change transistors, it is very insensitive to device parameters, because the active device is only being used as a switch. He also makes the point on simplicity that it is an inherently single ended design, I suppose this has trade-offs in the level of harmonics. I will be fascinated to see some really high power design using this technique. I believe the circuit on page 4.5 of the LF Sourcebook attributed to Roger ZL2RX is a Class E design, but there are not enough on the component values to check against Sokal's equations. Some of the comeonents look as if they were 'to hand' rather than being calculated values. It has a novel point that the choke, series inductor, and step-up transformer are wound on the same ferrite rod core. On the other hand, bearing in mind what has been said about the losses in some ferrite, that may be where some of the power has gone. All good stuff, get the blow-torches going chaps 73 de Alan G3NYK Alan.Melia@btinternet.com