Return-Path: Received: from rly-dc02.mx.aol.com (rly-dc02.mail.aol.com [172.19.136.31]) by air-dc01.mail.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILINDC014-b084730727c46; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:56:37 -0400 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-dc02.mx.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDC024-b084730727c46; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:56:14 -0400 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1IpOu1-00080q-H1 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:55:37 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1IpOu0-00080h-Rc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:55:36 +0000 Received: from smtp3.wanadoo.co.uk ([193.252.22.156] helo=smtp3.freeserve.com) by relay3.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IpOtx-000314-Of for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:55:36 +0000 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3212.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 334181C00084 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:55:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from AGB (unknown [91.109.52.229]) by mwinf3212.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with SMTP id D13B81C00088 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:55:27 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20071106135527857.D13B81C00088@mwinf3212.me.freeserve.com Message-ID: <004301c8207c$b17be720$0d00000a@AGB> From: "Graham" To: References: <007301c81fa0$aabd9a00$65ebfc3e@g3kev> <20071105121359.09bfb671@saluki.ngw.uk.com> <003601c81faa$d39e08b0$0d00000a@AGB> <005101c81fcb$fc19cab0$4bd0fc3e@g3kev> <000b01c8200a$2e1885e0$0d00000a@AGB> <00a701c8200c$be6d7540$0900a8c0@Lark> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:55:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E.... Instrumet induced errors ? Misunderstanding ? Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : Hi Alan, .. Thats the point , >>>>(((((Note that it is not a 50% squarewave)))). Conversely if the design > criteria are not followed the efficiency will be compromised. These PAs=20 > are > really just switching power supplies and those achieve very high > efficiencies at similar frequencies.<<<< Its a good system , I was noting a lot of 'posts' referring to , P=3DI*V , , even if it was a 1= :1=20 square wave, you would still need either a form factor , or better still , a= =20 'true rms' meter . to make the final measurement , assuming it has=20 sufficient bandwidth , A scope with a floating differential input , measuring across a very low=20 'passive' resistance would do the trick .. .. Its a bit like measuring the peak power out of a ssb set , do you measure=20 the peak envalope power , by peak votatage and calculate the power and then=20 mult by 0.707 to get the rms level .or just take the peak ... or just dont=20 ask ? Graham .. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Alan Melia" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:34 AM Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E.... Instrumet induced errors ? Misunderstanding ? > Well the thermo RF current meters measure RMS current, but have you looked > at the current from the PSU on a scope?? It shouldn't vary much if the=20 > choke > is doing its job properly. The FET switches the current to ground and when > it opens the current is diverted to flow into the shunt capacitor. The=20 > choke > tries to maintain the current flow by generating a "back emf"....this is > what chokes do. If the design is done properly (the choke and the shunt=20 > cap > are the right size) there should ve very little "ripple" in the current,=20 > so > the load seen by the psu should be fairly constant and it should not show > "sag". Note that it is not a 50% squarewave. Conversely if the design > criteria are not followed the efficiency will be compromised. These PAs=20 > are > really just switching power supplies and those achieve very high > efficiencies at similar frequencies. > > Alan G3NYK > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graham" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:15 AM > Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E.... Instrumet induced errors ? > > > Thats the point, the out put is 'pure' no problem to measure , but the dc > feed looks to be a 'complex' function ...any allowance made in the calc's=20 > , > past P =3D I*V ? > > Same problem, pulsed radars are very sensitive to psu ripple causing > 'spurious side bands' > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "hamilton mal" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 4:49 PM > Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E.... Instrumet induced errors ? > > > It looks like you have a serious problem, sounds more like a Radar tx.=20 > The > output from my class E is a beautiful sine wave, this is followed by a 5 > pole LPF. > For testing it is preferable to use a spectrum analyzer, and a good > calibrated scope and a quality DL > > G3KEV > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graham" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:53 PM > Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E.... Instrumet induced errors ? > > > ..... The 'I' supply to the stage dosent look like a sine wave , more=20 > like > a pulse train ? , thats the case will need a little more than a avo-8 to > get the correct value, vlaues may be actually higher than conventionally > measured, giving lower conversion factors ? supply bandwith may also be a > issure, caused by switching -rise times- is there a voltage collapse on=20 > the > leading edge, there must be some , but how much , reducing the 'area=20 > under > the curve' ? > > G .. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John GM4SLV" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 12:13 PM > Subject: Re: LF: CLASS D E > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:39:54 -0000 > "hamilton mal" wrote: > >> Hi all >> Tnx to all for the information, but some of the figures do not work >> out. How are the % figures measured. >> One simple method is to calculate the DC input PWR in watts (I x V) >> then using an RF current meter calculate the PWR out (Isq x R) let R >> be the norm 50 ohm D/load. Compare the two figures and calculate the >> Eff % 73 de Mal/G3KEV >> >> >> > > Again...with my TX > > At 50W output :- > > Dc supply =3D 18.7v at 3.4A > > Efficiency =3D 78% > > > The math's is trivial..... > > 18.7V x 3.4A =3D 63.58W DC input > > 50W RF output (as measured on a homebrew power meter calibrated against > a =C2=A320,000 R&S Spectrum analyser and precision 40dB power attenuator) > > Efficiency =3D Power Out / Power In > > > 50 / 63.58 =3D 0.786 > > Hence 78.6% efficient. > > Of course if you can't accurately measure any of the necessary > quantities then the end result will be meaningless. > > Measuring RF output using an RF ammeter and 50 ohm load is all well and > good...but...how accurate is your RF ammeter? How accurate is the 50 > ohms. How is the 50 ohms measured... at DC? Is it the same at RF? > > With a good Class-E amp and 90% efficiency it only takes one of your > measurements to be out by a few percent to make the efficiency > calculated to be really way out. > > Say (plucked out of thin air example):- > > DC input (most accurately measured parameters?) > > 13.8V at 5.3A =3D 73.14W > > > > RF output as measured by your RF ammeter/50 ohm load > > 1.17A in 50 ohms =3D 68.4W > > Efficiency =3D 93.6% > > > > If your RF ammeter reads 5% high... > > I =3D 1.23A in 50 ohms =3D 75W Out > > Efficiency =3D 103% > > Contact the Nobel Prize Committee... you've invented the prepetual > motion machine..... > > > > If your 50 ohm load is really 49 ohms however... > > 1.17A in 49 ohms =3D 67W > > Efficiency =3D 91.7% > > > > Don't assume there's some black magic mumbo-jumbo Emperor's New Clothes > syndrome with MOSFET amps just because it appears that you can't tie > down a reliable efficiency figure. Little errors make big differences. > The important thing is that they work, don't get hot and can produce > serious power for little engineering. Try getting a 2N3055 to produce > 150W on 500kHz. > > Cheers, > > John > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date:=20 > 11/2/2007 > 21:46 > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date:=20 > 11/2/2007 > 21:46 > > > > > > > > > > --=20 > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1106 - Release Date:=20 > 11/2/2007 21:46 > >=20